[006 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the City of Midlothian Comprehensive Plan’s future land use designation being 472± acres, out of the Allen Reeves Survey, Abstract 939, Jon Chamblee Survey, Abstract 192 and the JP Littlepage Survey, Abstract 643. (Case No. C01-2021-01).]

MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6 ON THE REGULAR AGENDA AND PUBLIC HEARINGS, WITH THE FIRST ITEM BEING TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ACT UPON THE ORDINANCE, FUTURE LAND

USE DESIGNATION FOR 472 ACRES. ARE YOU COVERING THIS ONE? >> I AM.

WE DO HAVE ON THE CALL AS WELL, OUR CITY ENGINEER, AS WELL AS ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER WHO ARE ON THE WEB EX CALL. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT IN PERSON AS WELL.

PROPOSED REQUEST THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS FOR APPROXIMATELY 472 ACRES, TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. PROPOSED REQUEST WOULD CHANGE VARIOUS DESIGNATIONS FROM SUBURBAN, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, LOW DENSITY, URBAN, TO CHANGE IT TO INDUSTRIAL MODULE, URBAN MODULE AND REGIONAL MODULE. PROPOSED PROPERTY IS JUST NORTH OF U.S. HIGHWAY 287.

AND WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 67. IT'S ALSO COMING, THIS IS ALSO PART OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 564, ALSO KNOWN AS THE GATEWAY PROJECT.

THESE ARE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED. RIGHT NOW, AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE THE SUBURBAN MODULE, LOW DENSITY. WITHIN THE PE, THERE IS VARIOUS USES THAT WERE PERMITTED. WITHIN THE PD, IT ALLOWED A RANGE OF 50-FOOT WIDE LOTS, 70-FOOT LOTS, EVEN 25-FOOT LOTS. IN THE PE, THERE WAS SOME AREAS THAT WERE, THAT SPECIFIED THE NUMBER OF UNITS, SUCH AS 93, THE 70S, IT WAS UNCLEAR HOW MANY UNITS WERE PERMITTED BEFORE THE PD. IT DID NOT SPECIFY IT.

WITH THE 25-FOOT WIDE LOTS, ALLOWED FOR 450 UNITS. THOSE ARE ALL FOR ATTACHED.

A TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS FOR THIS ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT WAS 763.

FOR THE 50S, FOR NUMBER OF DETACHED UNITS, ALLOWED FOR 220.

ONCE AGAIN, THE 70S WERE NOT SPECIFIED. 25S WEREN'T ALLOWED FOR ANY DETACHED. ONE THING I ALSO WANTED TO ITERATE IN THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, IT DOES ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY. WE DO HAVE A PROJECT THAT IS NEAR COMPLETION. ANY UNITS ABOVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THE PROPOSED REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS NOT TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION YET.

CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MODULE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, GENERALLY WHEN YOU CHANGE THE ZONING, YOU WANT IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. AND SO THE DEVELOPER IS GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS. AND REQUESTING IT FOR FUTURE IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE ZONING, IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE ZONING IN THIS AREA AT A FUTURE DATE. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND IF THIS CHANGE IS APPROVED THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED DURING THE FUTURE ZONING AMENDMENTS. THERE IS VARIOUS DOCUMENTS THAT WE THINK ARE NECESSARY WHEN THE ZONING CHANGE COMES FORWARD. SOME OF THESE THINGS WOULD INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, YOUR TYPICAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO LIST YOUR AMENITIES, SPECIFY THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES, DIFFERENT TYPES OF UNITS.

PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR THE NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.

VARIOUS THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES. ALSO DETAILING HOW THE CITY PLAN WILL BE IMPACTED. EXPLAIN HOW TXDOT FACILITIES WILL BE ADDRESSED.

LOOP NINE AND THEN ANY FUTURE ACCESS ROADS. INCLUDING ANY MITIGATION

[00:10:02]

MEASURES THAT ARE NECESSARY AS WE GO THROUGH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO NOW, THE TYPE OF CASE THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING, A LOT OF THE MIDDLE AREA, THEY ARE REQUESTING TO CHANGE TO INDUSTRIAL MODULE. RIGHT NOW IN THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE, THERE IS NO INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATIONS. THEY ARE REQUESTING ALSO TO DECREASE THE REGIONAL MODULE TO MOVE IT MORE TOWARDS U.S. HIGHWAY 67.

ALONG THIS, AROUND THE LOOP, ALSO REGIONAL MODULE, HAVE THE URBAN MODULE, HIGH DENSITY TO BE LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE REGIONAL MODULE. IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION, THE URBAN MODULE HIGH DENSITY WAS LOCATED ON THE EASTERN PORTION, NORTHEASTERN PORTION OF THIS AREA, SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND ALSO ALONG 287. RIGHT HERE.

>> WHAT USES ARE PERMITTED IN THE URBAN MODULE? >> HIGH DENSITY?

>> YES. >> MULTIFAMILY. MORE DENSE, IT'S GENERALLY MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU WOULD SEE SMALLER LOT SIZES, HOMES WITH SMALLER SETBACKS.

IT WOULD ALLOW FOR BOTH DETACHED AND ATTACHED PRODUCTS. BUT MULTIFAMILY IS ONE OF THE PRODUCTS THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN THIS AREA AS WELL. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO, HE HAS A PRESENTATION HE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. WE DID NOTICE ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. WE DID RECEIVE A NOTICE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE WINDSOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS LOCATED TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL TURN THE TIME

OVER TO MR. ANDERSON. >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. CAN YOU JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAIN

WOULD BE ALLOWED IN INDUSTRIAL? >> INDUSTRIAL MODULE. RIGHT.

WITHIN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE INDUSTRIAL MODULE SECTION, WE GENERALLY CLASSIFY CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIFFERENT LAND USE MODULES.

ONE OF THE MOST COMMON MODULES YOU WOULD SEE ARE, OR COMMON ZONING DISTRICTS YOU WOULD SEE ARE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL. VARIOUS USES, SUCH AS WAREHOUSING, CONTRACTOR FACILITIES, DISTRIBUTION CENTERS.

THE DATA CENTERS, INDUSTRIAL USE ACCORDING TO OUR PLANS. VARIOUS THINGS SUCH AS THAT.

ONCE YOU GET INTO THE HEAVIER INDUSTRIAL, I BELIEVE THAT IS ALLOWED IN COREY MODULE, THAT IS WHEN YOU GET TO THE CEMENT FACTORIES, THE MORE THAT HAVE MORE OF A NUISANCE TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, SUCH AS NOISE, LIGHT POLLUTION. THINGS SUCH AS THOSE.

SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN KIND OF VERY SMALL SCALE, IF YOU LOOK AT MIDLOTHIAN BUSINESS PARK AND EAST GATE, THOSE ARE BOTH SIMILARLY ZONED FOR THE INDUSTRIAL MODULE.

>> WE ALREADY HAVE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS TO THE SOUTH OF THIS. AND WE HAVE TO THE NORTH.

RIGHT? >> CORRECT. WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS NORTH AND HERE AND I BELIEVE THE FIRE HOUSE IS DOWN HERE. WE DO HAVE SOME FURTHER SOUTH

ON U.S. 67, A LOT FURTHER SOUTH. >> SO WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL, WE

ALSO HAVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, RIGHT? >> WE HAVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL THROUGHOUT THE CITY. OUR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS VERY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

IT'S NOT YOUR TYPICAL. IF YOU GO TO OTHER CITIES AND DO A COMPARISON, I WOULD CLASSIFY IT AS A HEAVY HEAVY COMMERCIAL USE. WITHIN OUR CITY, YOU'LL SEE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES INTER-MIX WITH COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY RETAIL.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> COME BACK TO STAFF AFTER WE

HEAR THE PRESENTATION. >> PLEASE. >> THANK YOU.

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AND JUST PLEASE COME UP AND ANNOUNCE

YOURSELF AND STATE YOUR ADDRESS. >>

>> COMMISSIONER, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ADJACENT LAND

LANDOWNER, RICHARD, HE HAS ANOTHER ENGAGEMENT. >> HIS THREE MINUTES FIRST.

YES. THAT WOULD BE FINE IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, YES.

>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, COMMISSION, CITY STAFF. MY NAME IS RICHARD PAIGE.

I FILLED OUT A CARD. I'M FROM SOUTH LAKE. SO I'M ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, NOT IMMEDIATE. I REPRESENT A GROUP OF PARTNERS WHO OWN 28 ODD ACRES AT THE CORNER OF OVERLOOK AND 287. WHICH THANK YOU, SIR. I'M HERE TONIGHT SPECIFICALLY

[00:15:01]

TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION THAT THIS CHARLIE ANDERSON HAS PUT FORTH ON THE NEARBY PROPERTY.

YOUR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 006. FOR WHICH HE IS REQUESTING ZONING CHANGES.

WE'VE OWNED OUR TRACT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS IN THOSE MANY YEARS, WE'VE MADE A NUMBER OF TENTATIVE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS FOR OUR TRACT TO ATTEMPT TO GET THIS GENERAL AREA MOVING.

WHILE WE'RE NOT ZONED AG, MOST OF THE IMMEDIATE AREA IS PROBABLY PAYING AG TAXES, AND THUS NOT A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO YOUR PROPERTY TAX FOR THE CITY OR COUNTY.

MR. ANDERSON'S PROPOSAL IS YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO SPUR THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS LARGELY UNDER-USED PROPERTY. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES NEEDED RELATIVE TO STREETS AND SUPPORTED SERVICES IN THIS AREA.

HIS PROPOSAL WOULD PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL REVENUES OR WOULD ALLOW YOU TO POSSIBLY SOLVE SOME OF THOSE SOLUTIONS. SO WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF HIS REQUEST TO AWAKEN ALONG A NEGLECTED PORTION OF THE CITY AND THUS BRING THE OPPORTUNITY OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, AS

YOU ALLOWED IN OTHER SECTORS OF THE CITY. >> MR. PAIGE, WHAT DO YOU SEE THE FUTURE OF YOUR LOT, YOUR PROPERTY THERE? IS IT RESIDENTIAL? COMMERCIAL? WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING TO PUT THERE?

>> QUITE FRANKLY, IF HIS DEVELOPMENT IS SUCCESSFUL, IT WOULD CHANGE THE PERSPECTIVE OF OURS. WE COULD GO RETAIL. WE'RE RECEPTIVE TO WHAT THE

MARKETPLACE MIGHT BRING. AND THAT THE CITY WOULD ALLOW. >> AND YOU HAVE 20 ACRES THERE?

>> 28. >> 28. BUT NO CURRENT PLANS OF ANY

PARTICULAR TYPE? >> NOTHING ON THE PLATE. JUST HOPING TO GET THAT GENERAL

AREA MOVING. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> MR. ANDERSON. MY NAME IS CHARLIE ANDERSON, 4801 WEST LOVER'S LANE DALLAS.

WE HAD BEEN, WE WILL BE ASSEMBLED, I GUESS I SHOULD SAY, IN THE LAST 15 YEARS, MOST OF THIS PROPERTY AND DID A ZONING CASE BACK IN 2007 AND 2008.

AT THAT TIME WE HAD LOOKED AT DOING A BUSINESS PARK. BUT THAT WAS IN DIRECT COMPETITION TO RAILPORT. OF COURSE, IN 15 YEARS, RAILPORT HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY. AND IS PRETTY WELL BUILT OUT NOW.

THE LAST BIG TRACT IS UNDER CONTRACT IN THE FRONT AT RAILPORT PARKWAY.

WITH ALL OF THE FANTASTIC ACTIVITY THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN -- RECEIVED FROM GOOGLE AND THE SUN RIDER DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS ALREADY IN THE BUSINESS PARK, I THINK OUR TIME HAS COME. THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS NOT BE RESIDENTIAL.

THE REASON WE'RE HERE, CHANGING THE CITY LAND USE PLAN. NORMALLY WE WOULD DO IT AT ONE TIME. BUT THEY RECOMMENDED THAT WE DO IT INCREMENTALLY AND START WITH THIS PROCESS. IT WAS THE SUGGESTION MADE TO ME.

WE HAD THIS PROPERTY ZONED IN A PD, BACK IN THE DAY THIS WAS GOING TO BE A BIG POWER CENTER LIKE THE WALMART. AS YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A MAJOR IMPACT ON LARGE 80-ACRE RETAIL SITES. THE RETAIL CURRENTLY IS FOCUSED DOWN ON 287, 663 AND OTHER AREAS IN THAT DIRECTION. WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GENERATE ANY RETAIL ACTIVITY HERE.

SO ONCE I'VE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH THE EDC, WITH KYLE AND CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, THERE IS A REAL DRIVE TO CREATE A BUSINESS PARK AT THE MERGE OF THESE TWO FREEWAYS.

WE WERE ASKED NOT TO HAVE ANY ACCESS ON 287, BECAUSE THERE IS NO SERVICE ROAD.

THERE IS A SERVICE ROAD AND OUR PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO MOVE THE OFF-RAMP BACK TO ALLOW FOR BETTER ACCESS. RIGHT NOW THE OFF-RAMP IS WAY DOWN HERE, BECAUSE OF THE GORE, NONE OF THIS PROPERTY HAS ACCESS FROM THE OFF-RAMP BECAUSE THE OFF-RAMP IS TOO FAR DOWN AND YOU CAN ONLY ACCESS THE LOVE'S. WE HAD DONE THE ENGINEERING.

IT WOULD SHOW TO MOVE THE OFF-RAMP BACK TO THIS LOCATION. RIGHT NOW WE CAN'T DEVELOP MUCH

[00:20:03]

OF ANYTHING WITHOUT A NEW OFF-RAMP. SO THAT HAS REALLY BURDENED THIS WHOLE AREA HERE. SO WHEN WE STARTED THE PROCESS, THIS IS OUR PART OF OUR, THERE IS TWO SEPARATE PROPERTIES HERE THAT I'M THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THIS PROPERTY.

WE HAVE THE REGIONAL MODULE, WHICH IS THE BIG 80-ACRE RETAIL POWER CENTER, WAS THE GENERAL IDEA HERE. WE HAVE SOME MULTIFAMILY RIGHTS ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

THIS IS THE OTHER PROPERTY, THE CANN PROPERTY, ZONED SINGLE FAMILY.

ACTUALLY, ON THE MODULE, THIS IS THE LARGEST CHUNK OF HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY IN THE ENTIRE CITY. AS IS RICHARD'S PROPERTY. WE'RE ASKING AT THE SUGGESTION AGAIN OF STAFF AND THE COUNCIL, TO START WITH THIS PROCESS. AND WE WOULD BE CHANGING THIS TO A BUSINESS PARK, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TYPE USE. AND I'LL SHOW YOU SOME SLIDES OF WHAT OUR INTENTIONS ARE. THAT WOULD REMOVE THE SINGLE FAMILY FROM THIS AREA AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO REMOVE SOME OF THE MULTIFAMILY THAT WE HAVE HERE.

POTENTIALLY, IF YOU TAKE 18 UNITS TO THE ACRE, 90 ACRES, 1600 APARTMENT UNITS ON THE COMP PLAN TODAY. AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER POTENTIALLY, WHAT WE HAVE BY RIGHT, ANOTHER 250 UNITS. THERE IS CLOSE TO 1900 PLUS UNITS THAT ARE, IF YOU WENT BY THE EXISTING COMP PLAN. SO OUR CHANGING OF THE COMP PLAN, WOULD AGAIN, REMOVE THE SINGLE FAMILY AND THEN REMOVE THE MULTIFAMILY, WHICH WOULD BE CLOSE TO 1900 UNITS WOULD BE REMOVED. THIS IS OUR PROPOSAL. USING THE INDUSTRIAL MODULE HERE. AND THEN KEEPING STAFF AND CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE HAD ASKED TO CREATE A BUFFER. THEY DIDN'T WANT A BUSINESS PARK ON THE FREEWAY.

SO THIS WOULD BE, WE WOULD MAINTAIN RETAIL HERE AND HERE. THIS IS WHAT IS CALLED INDUSTRIAL FLEX. AND LIKELY, THE SAME THING WOULD BE HERE.

I'LL SHOW YOU THOSE ON THE NEXT, UPCOMING SLIDES. THIS AGAIN, IS THE -- TWO OTHER THINGS TO POINT OUT ON THIS PROPERTY. AGAIN, ZONED SINGLE FAMILY.

WE HAVE BOTH OF THE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS. THIS IS AN OPEN DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITH THE TRA, THAT GOES THROUGH THE TOP OF THE PROPERTY.

TODAY, THERE IS TWO MILLION GALLONS OF AFFLUENT GRAY WATER THAT COMES OUT EVERY DAY TO THE SURFACE, GOES THROUGH HERE. BACK UP TO THE SINGLE FAMILY. AS LONG AS THE PLANS ARE OPERATING AS THEY SHOULD, IT'S PROBABLY NOT A PROBLEM. THE CITY IS GETTING READY TO INCREASE THIS TO FOUR AND A HALF, TO SIX MILLION GALLONS OF PROCESSING, WHICH WOULD DOUBLE THIS FLOW TO FOUR MILLION GALLONS A DAY, THROUGH THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY, THROUGH THIS FLOWAGE EASEMENT, INTO THE PADERA LAKE. AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE'VE LOOKED AT, THIS IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE TO CREATE A BUSINESS PARK AND REALLY NOT THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT HERE. RICHARD JUST SPOKE ABOUT THIS PROPERTY. I REPRESENT THE BLUE PROPERTY HERE AS WELL.

I HAVE A LETTER ON MY NEXT SLIDE FROM THE OWNER OF CENTURON AMERICAN, THEY HAVE 2500 ACRES IN GRAND PRAIRIE. I HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT. EXCEPT FOR THE SEWAGE TREATMENT, ALL OF THE LANDOWNERS THAT HAVE UNDEVELOPED LAND ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO THIS IS THE LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN, I BELIEVE THAT IS PROBABLY IN YOUR PACKET. TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER OSBOURNE'S EARLIER QUESTION, I'M SORRY IT'S NOT THE BEST PHOTOGRAPH. THIS IS WHAT WAS BUILT, 1.3 MILLION SQUARE FEET BACK IN 2004. ALL IN ONE BUILDING.

THIS IS THE TARGET BUILDING AT RAILPORT. THIS IS THE TYPE OF EXTERIOR THAT WAS BUILT BACK IN THAT GENERATION. NOT A LOT OF SIZZLE TO IT.

THIS IS A CURRENT GENERATION TARGET DISTRIBUTION CENTER, BUILT IN ILLINOIS, 1.2 MILLION SQUARE FEET. YOU CAN USE THE USE OF THE GLASS, LOTS OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. JUST A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LOOK.

MUCH MORE OF A HIGH END WITH MORE OFFICE SPACE AND WINDOWS. THIS IS THE NEW GENERATION.

THESE BUILDINGS ARE RUNNING ANYWHERE FROM 70 TO $100. SOME OF THEM WITH BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY REACH $120 A FOOT. SO THESE COULD BE 50 TO

[00:25:03]

$70 MILLION BUILDINGS EACH. THIS IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT. HERE IS A FREEWAY, SIMILAR TO OUR 67. HERE IS THE FLEX BUILDINGS IN THE FRONT, WHICH WE ARE USING TO ACT AS A SCREEN. THEY'RE A HIGHER FINISH. HERE IS THIS BIG INDUSTRIAL CROSS DOCK BUILDING WHERE THERE IS DOCKS ON BOTH SIDES. THIS IS A REALLY HIGH END FACADE. THAT IS A REALLY CLASS A TYPE LOOKING BUILDING WITH A LOT OF, SOME OFFICE SPACE AND SOME OF THIS JUST FOR THE LOOKS. IT IS SORT OF THE FLOW.

APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING. THESE ARE NOT ALL OFFICE SPACES.

BUT THAT IS JUST THE LOOK TODAY. PEOPLE ARE PUTTING MORE MONEY AND TIME AND THOUGHT INTO CREATING A BUSINESS PARK. NOW, THIS IS AN INTERIOR PICTURE OF THIS, BECAUSE THERE IS A MEZZANINE SPACE. AND SO AGAIN, THIS IS A REALLY HIGH END BUILDING, BUT IT'S IN THE BACK. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON OUR PROJECT. HERE IS THE BUILDING IN FRONT. SO USING THE SAME DEVELOPMENT, THIS IS 140,000 SQUARE FOOT TENANT CALLED HERITAGE AUCTIONS.

THESE ARE FLEX BUILDINGS. THESE BUILDINGS HAVE A HIGH OFFICE FINISH. AND THEY CAN BE, SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS YOU MIGHT SEE AS A RETAIL USE, SOMETHING VERY POPULAR NOW, CLIMBING WALLS, GYM COMPANIES THAT WANT TO GO IN AND DO LIKE A FREESTANDING GYM, BUT IT WILL BE INSIDE OF A BUILDING, BECAUSE YOU CAN DO A LOT. YOU HAVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY WHEN YOU HAVE THESE HIGH CEILINGS AND HIGH OFFICE FINISH.

SO THIS TENANT ACTUALLY IS PRETTY MUCH ALL OFFICE FINISH. BUT THEY HAVE AN AUCTION COMPANY. THEY HAVE BIG ROOMS LIKE THIS WHERE THEY CAN PRESENT AUCTIONS. THIS IS AGAIN, HERE IS THE FREEWAY, HERE IS WHAT YOU SEE IN THE FRONT BUILDING. THIS IS A VERY HIGH END LOOK. SO THIS IS WHAT IS CALLED FLEX SPACE. THIS IS ANOTHER BUILDING, SIMILAR.

THESE WOULD BE ONE OF THE LARGER BUILDINGS. THIS WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2019, A MILLION AND A HALF SQUARE FEET FOR SAMSUNG. YOU CAN SEE A COMPLETE DIFFERENT APPEARANCE. LOTS OF THOUGHT AND MONEY GOING INTO THESE BUILDINGS.

THEY ATTRACT AN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR. SOMETHING YOU MIGHT HAVE IN YOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT, WHERE THEY'RE BUYING THESE TYPES OF TRIPLE NET LEASE BUILDINGS.

THIS IS WHAT ATTRACTS THESE MAJOR CORPORATIONS. THAT IS WHAT IS BEING BUILT TODAY. HERE IS ANOTHER ONE. THIS IS MODERATE SIZED 700,000 SQUARE FOOT FOR ULTA COSMETICS. JUMPED THE GUN A LITTLE BIT.

SORRY. HERE IS ANOTHER ONE. THIS IS ANOTHER USE.

IT LOOKS JUST LIKE THE ULTA BUILDING. THIS IS FOR STRIKER.

THEY DO HIP REPLACEMENTS. MAKE THE MECHANICAL THINGS THAT GO INTO BODIES.

BUT THEY'VE TAKEN IT AND PUT A HIGH FINISH IN THIS BUILDING. BUT IT IS AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. YOU HAVE A HIGH GROUP OF EMPLOYEES, WITH HIGH INCOME.

SO IN THIS 320,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, YOU SEE A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF IT IS THIS OFFICE. IT'S 79,000 SQUARE FEET. WE WERE ASKED TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT OR MEMORANDUM WHICH NORMALLY WE WOULDN'T DO UNTIL WE GOT INTO THE ZONING, BUT WE DID IT JUST TO GIVE A GENERAL IDEA, TO SHOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO THINK THIS THROUGH. SO UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, WHICH IS ALL SINGLE FAMILY, AND THE RED MODULE THAT YOU SAW, THE TOTAL TRIPS, IF IT WAS BUILT OUT, WITHOUT ANY ZONING CHANGES, IS ABOUT 48,000 TRIPS. IF YOU TOOK INTO ACCOUNT WHAT THE COMP PLAN SAYS TODAY, WHICH INCLUDES 1600 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 57,000, AND OUR STUDY SHOWS ABOUT 38,000 UNDER THE NEW PLAN, WHERE WE TAKE A LOT OF THE RETAIL GOES DOWN FROM 80 ACRES TO 28 ACRES. AND THE MULTIFAMILY IS DELETED FROM THE PROJECT.

THIS IS THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF BULK WAREHOUSING AND THE TYPE OF TWO-WAY TRIPS TAKEN HERE. AGAIN, THIS WAS PUT TOGETHER BY OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, JONES AND CARTER, WHO WORKED ON THE RAILPORT PROJECT AS WELL. THERE WERE QUESTIONS BY STAFF ABOUT THE ANALYSIS ON WHAT IS CALLED A HIGH CUBE. I THOUGHT I WOULD TOUCH ON THIS. SHOWING JUST LESS THAN TWO CARS PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

THE CITY'S ENGINEER KIMBERLY HORN ASKED THE QUESTION, WHICH IS NOTED HERE.

KIMBERLY HORN'S RESPONSE WAS BASED ON A STUDY IN 2016, WHICH UTILIZED ONE DATA POINT, ONE

[00:30:06]

LOCATION. THE DATA WE'RE USING IS, THAT WAS A SINGLE FULFILLMENT CENTER. THE DATA WE'RE USING IS DERIVED FROM TEN STUDY LOCATIONS.

CALIFORNIA, NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY AND TEXAS. IT'S GETTING TOUGH.

THIS IS THE KIND OF THE CONCEPT SHOWING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. CURRENTLY WE HAVE TWO FREEWAYS.

THAT IS WHAT DRIVES THE ABILITY OF THIS PROJECT. THAT IS WHAT THE DEVELOPERS WANT. AND WE ALREADY HAVE REFERRALS FROM THE EDC AND MIDLOTHIAN FOR LARGE PROJECTS THAT WANT TO LOCATE IN OUR DEVELOPMENT. AND SO AGAIN, THE OFF-RAMP IS HERE. WE HAVE SERVICE ROADS ON 67. WE'RE NOT TIEING INTO 287.

I MEAN, THERE IS A FIRE STATION. THERE IS AN ONGOING BACK TO THE WEST THERE. TXDOT HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD SERVICE ROADS. WE DON'T KNOW THE TIMING. BUT I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY. THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN SHOW SOME SORT OF CONNECTION, TODAY'S DOLLAR, DIAMOND INTERCHANGE IS PROBABLY A $20 MILLION COST. DOVE.

287, OLD FORT WORTH ROAD. SO WE PROBABLY HAVE $80 MILLION OF INFRASTRUCTURE FROM TXDOT THAT WE'RE NOT UTILIZING. WE WILL BE BUILDING A ROAD THAT WILL CONNECT THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND COMING BACK OUT. AND THAT ROAD, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY THAT TOTAL COST I WOULD GUESS IS ABOUT $18 MILLION ON-SITE. SHOWS A CONNECTION FROM DOVE AND A SECOND ROUTE. THIS IS SINGLE FAMILY. THIS IS ASH GROVE.

SO THERE IS A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL OUT HERE. AT SOME POINT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A LOCATION, TO TRY TO -- IT WOULD BE A LOOP BACK TO OUR PROPERTY.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE A MAJOR BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AND I THINK ALL OF THAT COULD BE FUNDED THROUGH THE TAXES THAT ARE GAINED FROM THIS PROJECT. RAILPORT IS MAYBE STATE OF THE ART 25 YEARS AGO. THIS WILL BE THE STATE OF THE ART TODAY.

AND A LOT OF CITIES ARE LOOKING AT THIS. I MENTIONED IN ONE OF MY DRC MEETINGS THAT WITH THE GOOGLE AND WITH SUN RIDER, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY UPFRONT TRACKS RIGHT OFF THE FREEWAY. SO IF THE CITY WOULD LIKE THE VISION THAT WE HAVE, BRING A WORLD CLASS BUSINESS PARK HERE, YOU CAN CONTINUE ON THE MOMENTUM THAT YOU'VE ALREADY GOT. IF THIS PROJECT IS NOT APPROVED, IT WOULD TAKE YEARS TO HAVE A COMPARABLE PROJECT. I THINK THE MOMENTUM WOULD GO TO THE OTHER CITIES THAT ARE VERY INTERESTED IN THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS. THIS IS A ROUGH CALCULATION.

BUT IF WE BUILT OUT THE INDUSTRIAL, I DID THIS IN COORDINATION WITH THE EDC OFFICE. WE DID HAVE SOME OF THE RETAIL OF 300,000 AND WE HAD TWO SITES OF FLEX SPACE, FOR 300,000. THIS WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE TAX GENERATED BY THE PROJECT, WHICH WOULD BRING AN ANNUAL NUMBER OF ABOUT 4.3 MILLION TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN.

NOW, THIS IS NOT LIKE RAILPORT WHERE THE MONEY IS RESTRICTED AND HAS TO STAY IN, THIS WILL BE UNRESTRICTED MONEY THAT CAN BE USED ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. SO YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY WHAT, 125 MILLION OVER 30 YEARS. SO THAT IS ABOUT THE LIFE I THINK OF RAILPORT AT THIS POINT IS PROBABLY ABOUT 30 YEARS OLD. IF THIS PROJECT COULD GENERATE 125 MILLION TO THE CITY, IF YOU FAST FORWARD LIKE WHERE RAILPORT IS, I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNITY. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> YEAH. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTION.

YOU'RE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE BUSINESSES WILL NOT BE ASKING FOR ABATEMENTS?

>> I DON'T KNOW. BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T IDED THOSE TENANTS.

BUT THAT AGAIN IS UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY CHOOSE OR CHOOSE NOT TO

PARTICIPATE IN SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> YOU MENTIONED OTHER CITIES ARE COMPETING, THEY WANT THIS WAREHOUSE IN ORDER TO DRIVE JOBS?

[00:35:05]

>> METROPLEX, NORTH TEXAS IS THE LARGEST AREA OF LOGISTICS STOCK DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRY. SO THERE IS AROUND 50 MILLION SQUARE FEET A YEAR BEING BUILT FROM WEST FT. WORTH, UP TO DENTON, WAY OUT EAST, GOING SOUTH.

SO THIS IS WHAT THE INTERNET HAS BROUGHT, IS A LOT OF THESE BUILDINGS.

THE BUILDINGS ARE BIGGER. WHEN YOU BUY ONLINE, 30 PERCENT OF EVERYTHING BOUGHT ONLINE IS RETURNED. SO NOW THE BUILDINGS HAVE TO BE BIGGER BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT JUST DISTRIBUTING, THEY'RE TAKING BACK A LOT OF RETURNS. THE BUILDINGS ARE BIGGER BECAUSE THEY'RE MULTI-FUNCTIONAL. SOME OF THEM ARE POINT OF SALE AS WELL, DAN. SO YOU KNOW, IT'S TOTALLY UP TO THE CITY IF THEY CHOOSE TO

DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, IF A TENANT WOULD ASK FOR THAT. >> BUT THE MARKET RIGHT NOW TO GET -- LAND THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS IS THE OTHER CITIES ARE WILLING TO GRANT THOSE ABATEMENTS, THE LANCASTERS OF THE WORLD ARE WILLING TO GRANT ABATEMENTS, ISN'T THAT TRUE?

>> THOSE CITIES ARE ACTIVELY BUILDING MAJOR BUSINESS PARKS, LIKE LANCASTER.

WE THINK WE HAVE A UNIQUE LOCATION OF THE TWO FREEWAYS, THIS IS GOING TO BE THOUGHT OF A HIGHER END PROJECT THAN WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AT THE WILMER AREA.

WHAT IS ALSO ATTRACTIVE IS THE EDUCATED WORKFORCE THAT IS IN THIS AREA.

SO WHEN THE BIG COMPANIES COME AND THEY'RE HIRING LIKE IF YOU'RE TRYING TO, IF YOU'RE STRIKER AND YOU ARE COMING DOWN HERE AND YOU WANT TO BUILD A BIG FACILITY, WITH SOME OF THIS INDOOR AND YOU WANT TO TRACK THE RIGHT KIND OF PEOPLE, WHAT THEY'RE FINDING IN WILMER AND LANCASTER, THEY ARE HAVING TO GIVE INCENTIVES, BUT THEY'RE RUNNING OUT OF THE RIGHT KIND OF EMPLOYEES. HERE WE'VE GOT MAJOR, ON DOWN AND AROUND, WE'VE GOT A GREAT BASE OF EDUCATED PEOPLE THAT THAT IS WHAT THE COMPANIES ARE TELLING US, THEY WANT TO BE

DOWN HERE BECAUSE THE WORKFORCE IS HERE. >> RIGHT.

PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE MIDLOTHIAN, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD A GREAT INDUSTRIAL BASE.

SO WE HAVEN'T NEEDED TO CHASE THE INDUSTRIAL DOLLARS. INDUSTRIAL ZONE.

IN FACT, WE HAVE A LOT OF INDUSTRY. NORTH ON 67, SOUTH AND WE HAVE INDUSTRY. WHY CAN'T WE PUT THESE PROJECTS IN THE SAME, IN THOSE PLACES ON THE NORTH OR SOUTH ON 67? WHERE WE HAVE OPEN LOTS AVAILABLE?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW >> AND ZONED AND PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS THAT IS

OUR INDUSTRIAL AREA. WHY DO WE PUT THESE HERE? >> WELL, THE AREA I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHERE 67 WRAPS AROUND, THERE IS ABOUT 10 OR 12 PROPERTY OWNERS IN THERE.

THERE IS NOT THE INFRASTRUCTURE. YES.

THERE IS FREEWAY FRONTAGE. BUT THERE IS REALLY NOT THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND THAT IS, THESE KIND OF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR A REALLY HIGH END LOOK.

AND THAT NOT NECESSARILY IS WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. I THINK YOU BRING UP A GREAT QUESTION. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ATTRACTED US TO THIS SITE. AGAIN, WE'VE HAD THIS SITE FOR 15 YEARS.

TOOK US SEVEN YEARS TO BLOCK UP. WE BLOCKED UP SEVEN TRACTS OVER SEVEN YEARS. BUT THIS PROPERTY HAS A NATURAL BUFFER AROUND THREE OF THE FOUR SIDES. AND THEN WE HAVE OTHER LANDOWNERS THAT ARE ANXIOUS TO HAVE THIS AREA DEVELOPED. AND THE STAFF AND THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE HAS BEEN RELUCTANT TO APPROVE, BECAUSE OF THE SOILS THAT ARE ALL IN THIS AREA, THEY HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO APPROVE MORE SINGLE FAMILY. THIS SOLVES THAT ISSUE.

BECAUSE THESE TYPE OF STREETS DEEP FOUNDATIONS ARE BUILT FOR THESE TYPES OF BUILDINGS.

THAT TAKES THE ISSUES OFF THE TABLE. IT REMOVES THE MULTIFAMILY AND THE SINGLE FAMILY NEXT TO THE OLD CHOICE HOME DEVELOPMENT. BUT BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, IT'S A VERY COMPETITIVE MARKET. BUT PEOPLE WANT TO BE IN MIDLOTHIAN.

MIDLOTHIAN HAS A TREMENDOUS TRACK RECORD. YOU'VE GOT THIS GREAT MOMENTUM GOING. YOUR RAILPORT HAS NO MORE FRONTAGE LEFT.

THE LAST TRACT IS UNDER CONTRACT. SUN RIDER HAS PURCHASED THE LAND ACROSS THE STREET. AND THESE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR A DEED RESTRICTED HIGH CLASS INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH BIG BOULEVARDS AND WHAT WE WOULD BE HAVING IS LARGE, SO THESE STREETS THAT WOULD COME ON -- I DON'T HAVE -- I DON'T THINK THERE IS -- LET'S SEE.

WE'RE NOT AT THE LEVEL OF ZONING, I'M NOT SURE I HAVE A STREET PLAN.

THE STREET PLAN WOULD HAVE STREETS BETWEEN 90 AND 120 FEET WITH LARGE LANDSCAPE AREAS BACK

[00:40:04]

OF THE CURB, LARGE TREES. WE'VE GOT THIS NATURAL BUFFER. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DOING TRAILS. WHICH AGAIN, WOULD COME UP AT THE ZONING.

SORRY, I'M GOING BACKWARDS. BUT THAT IS PROBABLY THE BEST SHOT OF IT.

THERE WOULD BE A ROAD SYSTEM CONNECTING FROM THE SURFACE ROAD TO OLD FORT WORTH ROAD.

WE HAVE THIS NATURAL BUFFER. SO WE WOULD HAVE ALL SORTS OF LANDSCAPING AND TREES.

WE'VE EVEN DISCUSSED IF THE CITY, THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE MAYOR, HE SEEMED TO BE INTERESTED IN A NATURE PRESERVE OR SOME TYPE OF NATURAL AREA. THIS IS HEAVILY WOODED WITH THE NATURAL FLOW OF THE WATER GOING BACK UP TO THE LAKE. SO WE'RE LOOKING TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING OF A VERY HIGH QUALITY. AND I JUST DON'T KNOW ANYWHERE DAN, THAT THERE IS A SITE LIKE THIS THAT HAS GOT NATURAL COVER ON THREE SIDES.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THE COVER OUT ON THE FRONT. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SITE HAS A LOT OF PARTICULAR THINGS. REALLY, THE SITE IN THE HISTORY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ON ONE CORNER WE HAVE LOVE'S GAS STATION, EYESORE IN THE CITY. THE CITY HAS INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY FOR A VERY NICE FIRE STATION. IS YOUR PROJECT GOING TO FEED INTO THE LOVE'S FEELING, WHICH IS WHY WE REJECTED THE PILOT JAY GAS STATION FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO. THE CITY COUNCIL DID. HOW IS THIS GOING TO IMPROVE

THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PEOPLE IN MIDLOTHIAN? >> WELL, THIS IS EFFECTIVELY RIGHT SIZING. WHEN WE HAD THE PILOT IN THIS LOCATION HERE, AND THEN THIS WAS AN 80-ACRE RETAIL, WHICH WE WERE TRYING TO GET KROEGER AND TARGET, THOSE TYPES OF RETAILERS. THIS IS A RIGHT SIZING OF THAT. WE'RE LEAVING THE RETAIL ACROSS FROM THE FIRE STATION. YES, WHEN WE BOUGHT THIS LAND, LOVE'S WAS ALREADY HERE.

WE'VE TRIED EVERYTHING. THEY HAVE COME TO US TWICE TO BUY MORE LAND.

THEY WANTED TO BUY THIS PIECE TWICE. WE SAID NO. WE DON'T WANT MORE LOVE'S. SO THIS IS THE BUFFER. REALLY IS THE RETAIL AND THE RETAIL FLEX. THIS HAS A LOT OF TOPOGRAPHY. THIS HAS A 90-FOOT FALL FROM THE BACK. SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS ALL OF THAT.

WHEN WE COME BACK, THIS IS VERY PRELIMINARY TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.

AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK BEFORE THIS BODY AGAIN FOR A FORMAL ZONING AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS BODY AGAIN FOR CONCEPT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL. SO WE'LL HAVE YOUR INPUT.

WE WOULD WANT STAFF SUPPORT ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THIS IS A JOINT PROJECT THAT HAS GOT TO BE, NOT JUST WE'RE DOING A PROJECT AND LEAVING, WE ARE DOING A PROJECT THAT WE THINK WILL ENHANCE ALL OF THE LAND AROUND. AND I THINK THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE LANDOWNERS, THIS IS GOING TO BE A PARTNERSHIP IN ESSENCE.

NOT JUST PROPERTY TAXES. BUT PEOPLE THAT SHOP AND WILL LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

AND I THINK WE HAVE A CHANCE TO ATTRACT SOMETHING UNIQUE. BACK TO ONE OF YOUR POINT COMMISSIONER, WAS THAT A LOT OF CITIES AND I THINK YOU ALL HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN IN THAT BEFORE, WHEN CITIES HAVE BEEN IN THE LAND BUSINESS AND BEEN INCENTIVIZING THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND NOW THE CITIES I THINK HAVE LOOKED AND EDCS HAVE SAID WE NEED TO PARTNER WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND DO SOMETHING REALLY NICE AND NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF BEING IN A BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS. BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS, I'VE GOT A PROJECT IN TERRELL, SAME THING. WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY BUY THE LAND, THEY BUILD THE STREETS.

THE TENANT COMES ALONG, THEY END UP GIVING THEM THE LAND. THEY END UP GIVING A FORGIVABLE LOAN OF SOME SORT. SO THAT DOESN'T CREATE THE DRIVE TO CREATE THESE REALLY, I THINK VERY DISTINCT LOOKING BUILDINGS. AND I DON'T SEE, THERE IS REALLY A COMPONENT HERE, I THINK WE CAN DO THE OFFICE, THE RETAIL AND THE BUSINESS PARK AND CREATE SOMETHING REALLY UNIQUE AS A DESTINATION. BUT ALL OF THE RETAILERS ARE TELLING ME THIS WAS A ONE-OFF WITH WALMART. PROBABLY WON'T HAVE THAT AGAIN.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE SEPARATION AND THEY'RE PLAYING ON 287, WALNUT GROVE.

PROBABLY YOUR NEXT BIG RETAIL CORNER. THAT IS WHERE THE BIG TENANTS ARE TRYING TO GO. BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION. WALMART DOES FINE HERE.

[00:45:01]

BUT THAT IS -- WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET THESE OTHER TENANTS THAT WE WANTED.

THEY'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT THESE OTHER SITES. SO THIS PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE REPOSITIONED. AND IT REALLY NEEDS, I BELIEVE THE CORRECTION OF THIS 1600 MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT ARE ON THE COMP PLAN TODAY. AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER 250 BY RIGHT AND THEN 300 MORE WITH AN SUP APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. SO WE'RE WILLING TO REMOVE THOSE. THAT WILL BE DONE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING.

I WAS TOLD WE CAN'T DO THAT AT THE COMP PLAN. WE HAVE TO DO THAT AT THE ACTUAL ZONING. BUT THEY ASKED US TO BREAK IT OUT AND START WITH THIS STEP

FIRST. >> MR. ANDERSON, AS I SEE IT THIS IS NOT IN COMPETITION, BECAUSE THAT IS BASICALLY AN EXTENSION OF THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL.

>> YES, IT IS. >> SO THIS WOULD BE HIGHER END WAREHOUSES AND WOULD YOU HAVE

MANUFACTURING HERE? >> NO, SIR. THIS WOULD NOT BE MANUFACTURING. NO BIG INDUSTRIAL. WE REALLY DON'T EVEN HAVE -- WE DON'T HAVE THE UTILITY CAPACITY EVEN TO SUPPORT A MANUFACTURING FACILITY.

KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED DOWN WITH -- THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT HERE.

THIS IS A HIGH END LOGISTICAL PARK. WHEN YOU TALK TO THE DEVELOPERS THAT ACTUALLY BUILD THE BUILDINGS AND HAVE THESE TENANT RELATIONSHIPS, THE ONLY ONES, ALL OF THESE PICTURES I'VE SHOWN YOU, THEY'RE ALL HIGH CLASS COMPANIES WITH HIGH PAYING PAYROLLS. THOSE ARE THE ONES WHO ARE ACTIVELY SEEKING AND BUILDING THE 50 MILLION SQUARE FEET IN NORTH TEXAS. IT'S NOT THE SMALLER, LESS CAPITALIZED COMPANIES. SO WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO WORK WITH SOME OF THESE REALLY BIG COMPANIES. WE DO HAVE REFERRALS AGAIN, FROM THE EDC FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BE IN THIS PARK TOMORROW. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW QUICKLY COULD YOU DELIVER A BUILDING. COULD WE HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND BUILDING UP IN 24 MONTHS. THAT IS HOW IMMEDIATE THIS IS.

THAT IS WHY I SHOWED THE LAST SLIDE ABOUT THE REVENUE. BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, THAT COULD HAPPEN QUITE QUICKLY. WHICH YOU RUN THESE OUT, WHICH I DO WHEN I DEAL WITH MOST OF MY PROJECTS, THE CITY MANAGER OFFICE WANTS TO SEE A 30-YEAR RUN.

650 MILLION TIMES 30, THAT IS SIGNIFICANT IF YOU RUN IT OUT. AND YOU HAVE A LOOKBACK LIKE YOU WERE AT RAIL PORT. IF WE WERE ALL HERE 30 YEARS AGO, WHAT IS THAT GOING TO GENERATE. WHAT BENEFIT WOULD THAT BRING TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND THAT BENEFIT IS TIED, THOUGH, TO THAT AREA BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE FINANCING STRUCTURE WAS SET UP. THE MONEY HAS TO STAY WITHIN THAT CORE AREA.

THIS IS AN UNRESTRICTED PROJECT. ALL OF THESE FUNDS WOULD GO BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S DISCRETION. AND THE PNZ AS TO WHERE THE MONEY WOULD BE SPENT. IT WOULD NOT BE TIED TO THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

>> WITH THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY AREA, WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO SCREEN IT FROM THE WAREHOUSE

DISTRICT? >> WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, HERE IT IS NOW.

LET'S SEE. THERE IS A BETTER PICTURE OF IT.

WE'RE PROPOSING ELIMINATING THAT. >> TALKING ABOUT THE SMALLER

ONE. >> HERE? >> WE HAVE ZONING AND WHAT WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT IS TO ELIMINATE BOTH OF THOSE. SO THERE WOULD BE NO MULTIFAMILY. SO WE'RE NOT ASKING TO CHANGE THIS MODULE.

WHEN WE GO TO COUNCIL, AS PART OF OUR PACKAGE WILL BE TO REMOVE, THE MORE WE TALK WITH THE DEVELOPERS AND THE TENANTS OF THESE LARGE BUILDINGS, THEY REALLY WANT MULTIFAMILY IN PROXIMITY. BUT THEY REALLY DON'T WANT IT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY.

JUST FOR NOISE REASONS. SAME THING YOU HAVE DOWN AT RAILPORT.

ENDED UP BUYING EXTRA LAND TO KEEP RESIDENTIAL OUT. THERE IS A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION HERE. THERE WOULD BE MULTIFAMILY IN THE VICINITY, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE ON-SITE. WHEN WE FIRST CAME IN, YOU MAY HAVE BEEN, SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE PARTICIPATED IN ONE OF OUR EARLY MEETINGS A FEW MONTHS AGO ON THIS PROJECT, WE WERE TRYING TO SHOW WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT. WE HAVE A PLAN WITH A MULTIFAMILY HERE. BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE MOST EXPEDIENT TO HAVE THAT THERE.

BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO THE INDUSTRIAL PROJECT. REALLY FOR NOISE REASONS.

[00:50:02]

I'M ASSUMING I'VE GATHERED AT THIS POINT THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WOULD VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE ALL

OF THE MULTIFAMILY? >> THAT'S CORRECT. YES, SIR.

>> SO I LIKE WHAT I SEE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO WITH YOUR REZONING, THERE IS A COUPLE OF CONCERNS THAT I HAVE AND AT TIMES, IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO FIT A SQUARE BLOCK IN A ROUND HOLE. I HOPE WE'RE NOT HEADED IN THAT DIRECTION.

I WANT TO ECHO WHAT THE CHAIRMAN HAD MENTIONED EARLIER. WHEN YOU GET INTO DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE, BUILDINGS OF THIS MAGNITUDE, IT IS A RARITY THAT I DON'T SEE TAX ABATEMENTS NEEDED. BECAUSE IT IS A COMPETITIVE LEVEL, NO MATTER HOW NICE A BUILDING. REALISTICALLY, THE NICER REQUIREMENT THAT YOU PLACE UPON THE DEVELOPER SIDE, THEY WILL NEED THAT TAX ABATEMENT TO AFFORD IT.

IT'S SMART BUSINESS SENSE FROM THEIR END. SO $650 MILLION SOUNDS REAL GOOD. BUT WE MAY NOT START SEEING THAT MONEY FOR 10 TO 15 YEARS.

THAT HAS KIND OF BEEN WHAT I HAVE AT LEAST SEEN. I WOULD LIKE, I WOULD ASK YOU THIS QUESTION TO CONSIDER, WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE AS A CITY TO BE HEAVY ON THE INDUSTRIAL SIDE. ON ALL SIDES. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT USED TO BE A PROBLEM WITHIN OUR CREDIT RATING. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED IF COUNCIL WERE TO DROP BACK ON ABATEMENTS, WOULD THAT AFFECT THE POTENTIAL SALE OF YOUR LAND AS A DEVELOPER? BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE WE NEED TO CONSIDER.

WOULD WE BE PROVIDING FOR A DEVELOPMENT THAT WE COULD FIND OUT LATER DOWN THE ROAD SITTING STAGNANT BECAUSE THE ABATEMENTS AREN'T BEING APPROVED? HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THAT? THAT WON'T BE A PROBLEM AT ALL, IF THERE IS NO ABATEMENTS APPROVED, YOU'RE IN GREAT

SHAPE? >> LET'S LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE.

50 MILLION SQUARE FEET. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DENSITY THAT GOES OUT HERE IN THE METROPLEX.

1500 TO 2000 ACRES ABSORBED EVERY YEAR. WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF LAND FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. THOSE ASKS ARE GOING TO GET SMALLER AND SMALLER.

BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE -- NOT THE COMPETITION. SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE EDC, TO CREATE LARGE TRACK TRACKS, LARGE PIECES HERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS THAT. VERY LARGE PIECES.

WE HAVE A MAJOR GASOLINE THAT COMES ACROSS LIKE THIS. YOU CAN SEE IT RIGHT THERE.

SO WE'RE SPLITTING, BASICALLY, YOU HAVE ABOUT 300 BUILDABLE ACRES, 150 ON EACH SIDE.

SO YOU COULD BREAK IT UP INTO FOUR LARGE TRANCHES, LIKE A FORTUNE 500 COMPANY.

THERE AREN'T MANY OF THOSE LEFT. THERE ARE VERY FEW.

SO YES, THERE'S OTHER COMPETITION, BUT THERE AREN'T MANY PLACES THAT YOU CAN DO LIKE TARGET BUILT RAILPORT, 1.3 MILLION SQUARE FEET. YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LEFT.

THERE IS 300 ACRES IN THE BACK OF RAILPORT. THE TOPO IS NOT SUCH THAT IT WOULD WORK. NOT THE HIGH PROFILE THAT THESE TYPE OF USERS WOULD WANT.

PEOPLE MAY ASK. KROGER ASKED. A LOT OF PEOPLE ASK.

>> KROGER GOT AN ABATEMENT. >> KROGER GOT A REALLY BIG ONE. SO THAT IS UP TO THE CITY TO

DECIDE. AND I CAN'T SAY THAT I KNOW >> MY ONLY CONCERN IS UNTIL WE START BACKING OFF THE ABATEMENTS, WE DON'T FREE UP THE TAX DOLLARS THAT SHOULD BE

ROLLING IN EARLIER TO LIGHTEN THE LOAD. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SHARE

MORE THAN POTENTIALLY THAN YOUR GENERAL SALES TAX. >> YEAH.

>> SO YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE -- >> I'M SORRY.

THAT WOULD BE UP TO YOU ALL. WE'RE NOT, SOME PEOPLE GET CONCERNED ABOUT THEY SEE THESE AMAZON GRAY TRUCKS DRIVING AROUND, SPRINTERS AND ALL OF THAT.

WE DON'T WANT THAT HERE. THAT GENERATES TOO MUCH TRAFFIC.

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT. >> LET'S COVER THAT NEXT.

BECAUSE THAT IS MY NEXT QUESTION. SHOW ME WHERE YOUR ENTRYWAY

WOULD BE TO THE DEVELOPMENT. >> OFF-RAMP WOULD NEED TO BE MOVED BACK.

ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS. THIS IS ALL WE CAN DO BECAUSE OF THIS CROSSING HERE.

IT'S ELEVATED. IT'S FIXED BASICALLY. ONLY ONE PLACE TO PUT IT.

RIGHT HERE. >> BUT YOU DO HAVE FIGURED IN, IT IS WITHIN YOUR PROPOSAL THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING FOR THE OFF-RAMP TO GET ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC IN THERE.

>> THE CITY HAS TO INITIATE THAT. BECAUSE THAT IS A TXDOT.

BUT YES, IN CONJUNCTION WORKING WITH THE CITY. THAT WOULD BE A PART OF THE

PROJECT. >> WE'RE NOT RELYING ON THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE, IN

OTHER WORDS. >> CURRENTLY IF WE STARTED A BUILDING INITIALLY.

WE ALL KNOW HOW QUICKLY TXDOT WORKS. NOT SO QUICKLY.

[00:55:02]

WE DO HAVE THE NINTH STREET EXIT. >> HOW MANY TRUIPS A DAY DO YO EXPECT TO COME IN TO THIS FACILITY? I BELIEVE IT WAS 3,000.

LET ME GO BACK TO THE TRUCKS. >> HERE ARE YOUR TRUCK VOLUMES HERE.

>> THIS IS MY COMMENT BEFORE, THE ROUND BLOCK IN THE SQUARE HOLE, IF YOU CAN'T GET THE TRAFFIC FLOW GUARANTEED, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT MANY TRUCKS EXITING AT 9TH STREET.

>> WELL >> WE HAD THE TRAFFIC STUDY. IT'S NOT IN HERE.

WAS THAT UPLOADED? THE TRAFFIC STUDY. >> WE SENT TWO.

THERE IT IS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THERE IT IS. RIGHT NOW, THIS IS THE CURRENT TRAFFIC COUNT.

SO ABOUT 25 PERCENT OF THE TRAFFIC WOULD COME DOWN 67. ONLY ONE QUARTER OF YOUR QUESTION, MR. ROGERS WAS COMING DOWN 67. UNTIL THE OFF-RAMP WAS COMPLETED. WE HAVE BEEN LOBBYING FOR THE OFF-RAMP FOR SEVEN OR EIGHT

YEARS. >> IS THE ONLY ENTRANCE ON THE SERVICE ROAD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO LOOP AROUND TO GET BACK UP TO 9TH STREET TO MAKE A LOOP TO COME INTO YOUR ENTRANCE,

CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. ONLY A QUARTER WOULD BE COMING IN THIS DIRECTION. WE CAN BUILD A ROAD INTO THIS SITE.

OFF THE SERVICE ROAD IMMEDIATELY. THAT WOULD BE ON DAY ONE, YOU HAVE THAT ENTRANCE. THESE DRIVERS PUT IN GOOGLE LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES.

TELLS THEM HOW TO GET THERE. THEY WOULD COME OFF AT 9TH STREET.

ONCE THAT RAMP WAS BUILT, UNDER YOUR SCENARIO, TXDOT IS SLOW. >> THEY'RE ALWAYS SLOW.

>> ALWAYS SLOW. WE WOULD HOPE WE COULD EXPEDITE THAT WITH THE CITY.

THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO TAKE AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS, PROBABLY TO BUILD OUT.

SO BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE INCREMENTAL TO BUILD. >> I THINK I MIGHT HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOU. IF A TRUCK COMES UP 67, LET'S SAY IT COMES FROM 67 MANSFIELD, NEEDS TO GET INTO YOUR FACILITY, HOW IS IT GOING TO GET THERE?

>> HERE IS, COMING FROM MANSFIELD, 287. >> 287.

>> COME IN OLD FORT WORTH ROAD. WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A LOOP AROUND.

EFFECTIVELY A FOUR-LANE ROAD WITH A TURN LANE. >> SO THEY WILL COME THROUGH A

LOOP ROAD OFF OF WHAT I WOULD CALL MAIN STREET. >> YES, SIR.

>> AND THEN THAT IS -- >> WOULD THAT BE ONE OF THE FIRST ROADS YOU WOULD PUT IN

ALONG WITH YOUR ENTRANCE? >> YES, SIR. THAT LOOP ROAD WOULD BE FIRST.

HERE AT THAT INTERSECTION, WE WOULD PUT IN, WE WOULD SEEK A WARRANT FROM TXDOT TO GET A TRAFFIC SIGNAL THERE. WHICH I THINK THE FIRE STATION WANTED ANYWAY.

BUT IT'S NOT WARRANTED YET. WE'VE GONE TO TXDOT. THERE IS ALREADY A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL HERE AT 287 AND MAIN STREET. THOSE TWO NEW ONES, THEY JUST GOT TURNED ON. THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE IN BETWEEN 67, 287.

WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER LIGHT THERE. AND THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE 120-FOOT BOULEVARD WITH A MEDIAN TREELINE. MIGHT EVEN BE 140-FEET WIDE.

WE WOULD WANT TO DO AN ENTRY FEATURE. WANT TO HAVE AN ENTRY FEATURE THERE AND ONE ON 67. WE HAVEN'T DESIGNED THAT YET. BUT THAT WOULD BE SORT OF THE

DRAW IN TO THE PROJECT. >> THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

>> ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC THAT HAS NOT SIGNED UP? ANYONE SIGNED UP THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

SEEING NONE. MR. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME BACK UP.

[01:00:06]

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR. IF THIS WERE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, WE ADJUSTED THE COMP PLAN, GOT INTO REZONE. THERE IS, THE ONLY USAGE WOULD BE FOR WHAT WAS DESCRIBED WITHIN, THEY CAN'T GO BACK TO MULTIFAMILY OR GO INTO

ALTERNATIVE USES WITHIN THAT NEW ZONING, CORRECT? >> IF THE COMP PLAN WENT THROUGH, AND WAS APPROVED, AND THE PROPOSED ZONING WAS WRITTEN IN A WAY --

>> PROPOSED ZONING, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT THEY'RE SEEKING. >> RIGHT.

IF WE WRITE VERY SPECIFIC, LIKE WE DID FOR METHODIST OR GOOGLE, VERY SPECIFIC.

THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GO OUTSIDE THE USES LISTED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

OUTSIDE OF THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO AN AMENDMENT.

>> IS THAT USAGE LISTED WITHIN THE ZONING THEY WOULD BE SEEKING DEDICATED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SITE AND RETAIL ONLY? HERE IS THE REASON I'M ASKING, OBVIOUSLY PART OF THIS PROPERTY ABUTTS ASH GROVE CEMENT, YES OR NO?

>> YES. TO THE NORTH. >> AND BECAUSE WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH OTHER CITIES WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, WHERE WE'VE DEALT WITH SOME OF THIS IN THESE CLOSING DOCUMENTS, I TEND TO PROVIDE QUITE A BIT OF RESPECT AND LEEWAY FOR OUR LOCAL INDUSTRY THAT WE DON'T PERHAPS HAVE THE DESIRE TO GO ON THIS ROUTE AND FIND OUT 15 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WE GO A DIFFERENT ROUTE. AND ASH GROVE ENDS UP WITH NEIGHBORS THAT AREN'T HAPPY WITH CEMENT PEOPLE. DO WE NEED ANY TYPE OF PROTECTION MECHANISMS WITHIN CLOSING DOCUMENTS STATING THAT ASH GROVE GETS TO DO WHAT ASH GROVE DOES, JUST AS WE'VE DONE WITH THE OTHER BORDERING PROPERTIES.

YES OR NO? I UNDERSTAND IF IT'S INDUSTRIAL ONLY.

I DON'T HAVE THAT BIG OF A CONCERN WITH IT. BUT SOMETIMES WHEN WE GET INTO THESE ZONING REQUESTS AND 15 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, WELL, IT WAS ALLOWED, YOU DIDN'T REALIZE

IT AT THE TIME. >> THIS WASN'T WORKING LAST MEETING.

IS THE MIC NOT WORKING. >> I THINK I HEARD YOU >> LET ME GO UP.

A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, IF THE -- FIRST OF ALL, IF THE COUNCIL PROCEEDS TO APPROVE THIS CHANGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ONE THING YOU GOT TO REMEMBER, WE'VE STILL GOT THE EXISTING PD ORDINANCE IN EFFECT. SO THE NEXT STEP IN ORDER TO, WHICH STILL HAS THE MULTIFAMILY IN IT. SO UNTIL THAT ZONING ORDINANCE IS CHANGED, THE MULTIFAMILY IS STILL ALLOWED. SO WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN IS MR. ANDERSON AND HIS COMPANY, OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK IN, CHANGE THE ZONING NEXT TO CONFORM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. NOW, THEY COULDN'T COME BACK AND CHANGE THE EXISTING ZONING IN A DIFFERENT MANNER THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO THEY COULDN'T COME BACK IN FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT HAD SINGLE FAMILY IF IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW AREAS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I THINK WHICH -- >> AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET WAY OUT OF THE BOUNDS OF

THEIR INTENTION. >> THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANY AMENDMENTS, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO AMEND THE EXISTING ZONING IN A MANNER THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW VERSION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. UNLESS THE COUNCIL DECIDES THEY'RE GOING TO PUNT ON WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOW SAYS. AND ADOPTS A ZONING THAT IS CONTRARY TO IT. GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE CHANGE, Y'ALL KNOW THE COUNCIL AS WELL AS WE DO, BETTER, IN FACT, MY SENSE IS THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON.

SO YOU KNOW, SO THAT BEING THE CASE, NOW, WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO OTHER KINDS OF RESTRICTIONS, BOY, YOU KNOW, IN CLOSING DOCUMENTS BETWEEN THIRD-PARTIES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

TRANSACTIONS, I AM REAL -- >> AN EXAMPLE, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A HOUSING DISTRICT THAT ABUTTS ASH GROVE. WE'VE BEEN IN OTHER SCENARIOS, I THINK AS WE --

>> RIGHT. WHAT WE DID IN THOSE INSTANCES WAS REQUIRE PLAT NOTES.

>> THAT IS IT. THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. >> BECAUSE WE CONTROL THE PLAT NOTES. NOTES ON PLAT ARE PART OF THE CHAIN OF TITLE.

IF PEOPLE DON'T GO AND EXAMINE THEIR CHAIN OF TITLE, THAT IS AN ISSUE.

BUT IT ALSO CREATES SOME KIND OF RESTRICTION ON THE PLAT ITSELF.

[01:05:02]

AT LEAST SOME KIND OF A NOTICE THAT -- >> ALL I'M TALKING ABOUT.

>> SAYS HERE IT IS. YOU GOT TO BE -- SO WE COULD STILL, IF NECESSARY, CONTINUE WITH THOSE KIND OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PLAT NOTES AS YOU KNOW, FOR PROPERTY ABUTTING ASH GROVE IF WE NEEDED TO. IF YOU CHANGE THIS TO THE KIND OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHANGE THE ZONING THAT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED WOULD HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, COULD WE STILL DO IT?

YEAH. WE CAN STILL DO THAT. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARY. I WAS ONLY TRYING TO DESIGNATE THAT EVEN WHAT I UNDERSTOOD WHICH WOULD BE A FRIENDLY CHANGE TO INDUSTRY, SOMEWHAT LIGHT, BUT A LIGHTER USE.

I WAS TRYING TO ASCERTAIN -- >> IF I RECALL NOW, SITTING HERE KIND OF BRINGING IT BACK.

IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE WE DID THAT. WHAT WE DID IS WE ACTUALLY HAD THAT AS A PROVISION OF THE NEW PD ORDINANCE, WHEN WE CHANGED THE PD TO ALLOW FOR THAT RESIDENTIAL, IT WAS THAT A PD ORDINANCE SECTION THAT SAID THAT NOTE HAD TO GO ON THE PLAT WHEN THE FINAL PLAT CAME THROUGH. SO THAT WOULD BE THE MECHANISM THAT WE COULD DO THAT. AND WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THE SAME THING HERE WHEN THEY COME

THROUGH FOR THE ZONING AMENDMENT. >> I DON'T KNOW IT'S NEEDED.

JUST A QUESTION. THE VERY LAST QUESTION THAT I HAD FOR TRENTON.

>> OKAY. >> REAL QUICK, MR. ROGERS. POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, COMES ALONG HERE. DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH IS PD 91, WINDSOR HILLS. HERE IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. HERE IS THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL,

WHERE ASH GROVE AND ALL OF THAT IS LOCATED. >> SO MY FINAL QUESTION WOULD BE, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR ORIGINAL PRESENTATION, IN THE BEGINNING, SOMETHING ABOUT STAFF STILL NEEDED TO SEE SOME FINAL DOCUMENTATION OR SOME FOOTNOTES OR SOMETHING FROM THE

DEVELOPMENT SIDE FOR THEM TO FEEL COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE. >> THAT IS PART OF THE ZONING.

WHEN THEY BRING FORTH FUTURE ZONING AMENDMENTS, AS OUR ATTORNEY WAS STATING, THAT IS WHEN WE WILL SEE THE MORE DETAILED PLANS. SUCH AS TRAFFIC, MITIGATION

FACTORS. >> SO HERE IS MY QUESTION, I GET ALL OF THAT.

TO ME, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS OUR CITIZENS, OUR PUBLIC, OUR CONSTITUTION OF OUR GROWTH.

THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED WITHIN COMMITTEES THAT HAVE STUDIED DO THAT EVERY THREE TO FIVE YEARS WE HOPE, TO PROVIDE US A VISION FOR HOW THEY HAVE ALLUDED TO WHAT THEY WOULD SAY OUR CITY GROWTH WOULD BE. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE THE STICK BY IT.

BUT WE ALL KNOW TO CHANGE THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS USUALLY A RATHER RELUCTANT MOVE.

SO WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, AT LEAST FOR MYSELF AND I REALLY LIKED WHAT I HAD TO HEAR, AS FAR AS THE CHANGES HERE, BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'M LOOKING AT 110 PERCENT, KNOWING WHERE THIS IS GOING TO GO WITHIN THE ZONING SIDE. KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE SAY WELL, WE'VE GOT 60 PERCENT IDEA OF WHERE WE'RE HEADED. BUT WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

SO LET'S GO AND CHANGE THE COMP PLAN, WHICH TO ME IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE. THAT IS JUST MY TAKE ON IT. YOUR TAKE?

>> WELL, I COMPLETELY AGREE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS A VERY VITAL DOCUMENT WITH THE CITY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR OTHER ORDINANCE AND DOCUMENTS THAT GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

>> WOULD IT BE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEXITY AND IMPORTANCE OF THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT WE WOULD STILL PROCEED FORWARD BY MAKING A CHANGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO GO INTO ZONING NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT THE DOCUMENTATION HOLDS.

>> I CAN SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING WITH THAT? >> SIR? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET DIRECTION AND UNDERSTANDING OF STAFF'S THOUGHTS.

>> I'M KIND OF IN A SIMILAR POSITION. I UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING THIS FIRST. THERE IS A PROPERTY, MEANING TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND DO THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CHANGE.

I'M NOT SURE I WANT TO APPROVE THIS. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE THIS CHANGE TO AN INDUSTRIAL AREA. THERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF HOW

[01:10:01]

INDUSTRIAL AREAS CAN TURN OUT AT THE END OF THE DAY. I MENTIONED SOME, I ALLUDED TO WILMER HUTCHINS, NICE ONES LIKE THE ONES IN GRAND PRAIRIE, THAT MR. ANDERSON IS SHOWING FOR US.

WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG FEELING WHAT THE ACTUAL LAYOUT OF THINGS IS GOING TO BE.

IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE A DECISION TO UNDERLY THAT.

IS THAT CLAY (INAUDIBLE) THAT'S WHERE YOU GET INTO THE DETAILED, LIKE THE ANCHOR TENANTS AND THE ROADS, ACCESS, THOSE DIFFERENT MITIGATION FACTORS AND ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS. AND THAT IS KIND OF HOW STAFF HAS SEEN THIS APPLICATION, IS THAT WE'RE AT 100,000 FOOT LEVEL RIGHT NOW AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE CHANGES AND THEN YOU KNOW, THE FURTHER WE GET DOWN IN THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE ZONING CHANGE, IN THE ZONING REQUEST, THAT IS WHERE YOU GET THE DETAILS. THAT IS KIND OF MY VISION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND I THINK STAFF'S AS WELL. AND THAT IS KIND OF WHY WE'RE

TAKING THE TACT THAT WE ARE HERE. >> I MEAN, I GET THAT CLAY.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT. SO WE'RE NOT REJECTING THIS PARTICULAR VISION OR PROJECT.

WE'RE REJECTING WHETHER OR NOT AS A POLITICAL LEVEL, WE WANT TO SEE THIS CORNER OF OUR TOWN

AS INDUSTRIAL OR WE WANT IT AS SOMETHING ELSE IN THE FUTURE. >> I REALLY THINK, I THINK, TAKE AWAY ALL OF CHARLIE ANDERSON, WHAT HE SAID, I THINK MR. ALTMAN, WHAT YOU SAID, CRUCIAL QUESTION HERE, DO WE WANT TO MAKE A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE TO THAT CORNER FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL. I MEAN, IT'S RELATIVELY SIMPLE.

>> WELL, I SEE IT AS SECOND ALSO, CLYDE. WE AS A COMMISSIONERS BODY HAVE A DUTY AND A RESPONSIBILITY TO COUNCIL TO PRE-VET WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING.

AND I FIND THE INFORMATION THAT IS GOING TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL TO BE SOMEWHAT INCONCLUSIVE FOR THEM TO ALSO MAKE AN IN-DEPTH DECISION ON SOMETHING AS TOUCHY AS ADJUSTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO I AM ONE OF THOSE THAT THINKS WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF RESPONSIBILITY TO VET THIS OUT A LITTLE BETTER. SO I USE THIS WORD RELUCTANTLY.

I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD WASTE THEIR TIME. NONE OF THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME. I LIKE WHAT THE GENTLEMAN HAS PROVIDED.

SO THE RESPECT -- >> MIKE, I APOLOGIZE FOR USING THE WASTE OF TIME.

HOW GERMANE IT IS TO THE QUESTION AT HAND IS WHAT I'M QUESTIONING.

WE CAN'T HOLD THEM TO ANY OF THOSE DETAILED ITEMS THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE. NOW WHEN WE GET TO THE ZONING LEVEL, WE CAN HOLD THEM TO

THOSE THINGS. AT THIS POINT WE CAN'T. >> WE WILL HAVE ALREADY MADE

THE CHANGE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT THAT POINT. >> YOU'RE RIGHT.

BUT I MEAN, THAT IS WHEN YOU GET TO A PD LEVEL AND THAT IS WHERE YOU CAN SAY HEY, INSTEAD OF FOUR AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FOOT OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE, WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT HIM TO TWO MILLION SQUARE FOOT OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THE MITIGATION

FACTORS, TRANSPORTATION LEVEL ARE THERE. >> SO WHAT I AM UNDERSTANDING, SO I'M CLEAR, WE DO NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO REQUEST MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT

AT HAND WITHIN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSIDERATION CHANGE? >> I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY AND THAT WOULD BE -- I THINK YOU HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT, MIKE. MR. ROGERS.

I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GERMANE TO THE OVERALL QUESTION, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND THERE'S TEN DIFFERENT MODULES THAT THEY'RE HAVING TO CHOOSE

FROM IN THE LAND USE PLAN. >> I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE THAT FAR OFF WITH THE DEVELOPER.

I DO FEEL LIKE THERE ARE LOOSE ENDS TO BE TIED UP. >> I THINK THE ISSUE IS, I MEAN, THIS IS A BIG, I MEAN, WE HAVE THIS PURPLE ON OUR MAP. OKAY.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MORE GERMANE THING OF THIS DISCUSSION, AS I THOUGHT ABOUT IT. WHEN I LOOK AT THE MAP, ALL ALONG 67 THERE ARE PURPLE AREAS, NORTH AND SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT. NOT DIRECTLY NEXT TO IT.

THE QUESTION IS, DO WE MAKE THIS POCKET PURPLE AS WELL, WHICH IS THE COLOR FOR

[01:15:01]

INDUSTRIAL THAT WE USE ON OUR MAP. THAT TO ME IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US TODAY. I THINK WHAT MR. ANDERSON INTENDS TO DO IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT IT CAN BE DONE NICELY AND I APPRECIATE IT. I KNOW YOU WERE -- YOU'VE BEEN ON COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEES OVER THE YEARS. IS THIS WHAT WE ENVISIONED?

>> I WANTED THE APPLICANT TO FULLY UNDERSTAND, I AM PLEASED WITH WHAT I SEE.

I FEEL LIKE THERE COULD BE A BIT MORE THAT I COULD SEE TO BE COMFORTABLE.

I DIDN'T WANT THEM TO MISUNDERSTAND MY INTENT. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.

AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE MY THING UP HERE. BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE THE BUFFER TRACK. WE'VE BEEN OUT HERE FOR YEARS. THE SOIL CONDITIONS ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO SINGLE FAMILY. MULTIFAMILY CAN BE YOU KNOW, CAN BE HAD HERE.

SO WE'VE LOOKED AT WHAT IS THE BEST USE. SHOULD I BE IN HERE SEEKING A ZONING CHANGE NEXT WEEK. TO ACTUALLY ADHERE TO THE COMP PLAN AND BUILD A MULTIFAMILY PARK. THAT IS WHAT THE COMP PLAN IS. SO TO ME, YOU'RE ADDRESSING MAYBE SOME THINGS THAT WERE IN THE COMP PLAN THAT MAYBE ARE NOT WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS TODAY. SO IF SINGLE FAMILY IS NOT THAT.

AND MULTIFAMILY IS NOT THAT. RETAIL NO LONGER BIG PARKS OF RETAIL ARE VIABLE.

ANY RETAIL YOU DO HAS TO HAVE INCENTIVES TODAY. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. AGAIN, I WAS ASKED TO SEPARATE THESE TWO.

I WAS ASKED TO TELL ME WHAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO TRADE, SO TO SPEAK, ON THE ZONING.

SO I PUT FORTH THAT TODAY. I WAS TOLD THAT I CAN'T DO IT EFFICIENTLY BECAUSE IT HAS TO OCCUR AT A ZONING, NOT AT A COMP PLAN. I UNDERSTAND YOUR THOUGHTS.

AGAIN, I WANTED TO ADDRESS WHAT IS THERE. AND IF WE WENT AHEAD AND BUILT A MULTIFAMILY, WHICH Y'ALL HAVE TURNED DOWN A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY DEALS.

SO I THINK THERE IS A MARKET FOR THAT TOO. BUT I THINK THIS IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE. THIS IS WHAT THIS MARKET NEEDS AND THIS IS THE MOMENTUM THE CITY HAS TODAY. AND THIS IS THE REVENUE GENERATOR FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. THE BIG REVENUE GENERATOR. AND THIS IS A SUPER HIGH END AND YOU DON'T HAVE THIS TYPE OF BUILDING. SUN RIDER MAY BE, I HAVEN'T SEEN THEIR BUILDINGS. I KNOW THERE IS PARK MANUFACTURING.

BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE HIGH END ATTRACTIVE BUSINESS PARK WITH SCREENING ON THE FRONT AND WE HAVE AGAIN, PROBABLY 80 PERCENT OF THE SITE SURROUNDED BY YOU KNOW, NATURAL GROWTH. SO I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

AND I WOULD NORMALLY HAVE BROUGHT IT ALL IN AT ONCE, BUT I WAS ASKED TO PULL BACK AND SEPARATE IT. I HOPE Y'ALL WOULD TAKE THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT I WAS ASKED TO DO IT THAT WAY. I STILL THINK IT'S PROBABLY THE RIGHT WAY.

THEN WHEN WE COME BACK, WE'LL HAVE TIME TO DO MORE OF THE ELABORATE THINGS THAT TRENTON SAID WE WOULD NEED TO DO. THOSE ARE APPROPRIATE AT A ZONING LEVEL.

BUT NOT THE COMP PLAN CHANGE. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, MOTIONS?

>> I DO WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. >> CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST.

>> SURE. MAKE THE MOTION. >> IS THERE STILL A PORTION OF

THIS WITH THE NEW PD WITH THE HANOVER PROPERTY? >> BRIDGE WATER DEVELOPMENT.

>> THERE WAS A PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTY ON THE FAR EAST SIDE. >> AFTER YOU CROSS THE LAKES, AS IT CURVES, I BELIEVE THERE IS A SLIVER OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

>> IT USED TO BE TWICE AS MUCH. >> THERE IS CLAUSES IN THERE. I DON'T KNOW.

I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO OUR ATTORNEY. AFTER SO MANY YEARS IF IT WASN'T USED FOR INDUSTRIAL, IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO RESIDENTIAL.

THIS PD REMOVED THAT COMPLETELY. THOSE CLAUSES.

>> SO WE DIDN'T LOSE THAT USE. >> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND THAT MOTION.

I WILL NOW CALL THE VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING >> ROLL CALL.

[01:20:08]

>> ALL RIGHT. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

I BELIEVE YOU WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT. >> THE BIG ISSUE TO ME IS CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I THINK IT'S WONDERFUL THAT WE HAVE A CHALLENGE LIKE THIS, THAT WE HAVE THE FACILITIES AND THE WHEREWITHALL TO ATTRACT THIS KIND OF BUSINESSES. BUT WHAT REALLY BOTHERS ME IS THERE HAS BEEN LOTS OF HOURS AND MANY YEARS, LOTS OF PEOPLE PUT TIME ON THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING THE CITIZENS.

I THINK AT SOME POINT MY PERSONAL OPINION IS WE HAVE TO DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND, FOREGO SOME OF THE THINGS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY.

IS THIS REALLY A BENEFIT? YEAH. PROBABLY GOING TO PROVIDE JOBS.

BUT IT'S GOING TO CREATE TRAFFIC ISSUES. WE HAVE NEVER SET THIS PROPERTY ASIDE FOR THAT. I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE A REASON TO CHANGE THAT NOW.

I'M HAVING A REAL PROBLEM FROM CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ALL OF THE PLANNING THAT

HAS BEEN DONE FOR THAT. >> THE ONLY THING I SEE ABOUT THIS, YES, I AGREE, IT'S A TOUGH SPOT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO GET BUILT. SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL.

BUT IT'S GOT A LOT OF ISSUES TO GET THERE TO MAKE IT A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND THEY'RE FRONTED BY A GAS STATION AND TWO MAJOR HIGHWAYS.

INDOOR PLAY FACILITIES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDOOR BATTING AND BASEBALL TRAINING FACILITIES, STUFF LIKE THAT THAT CAN MIRROR SOME OF THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL USES.

WHICH ARE A BENEFIT FOR OUR FAMILIES. NOT HAVE TO LEAVE TO ATTEND THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES. INDOOR TRAMPOLINE PARKS. STUFF LIKE THAT.

I CAN SEE BOTH. >> I DID LIKE WHAT THE GENTLEMAN HAS TO OFFER.

I THINK WE'RE CLOSE, BUT I'M RELUCTANT BECAUSE I DON'T FULLY GET THE TRAFFIC FLOW YET AND THE CHANGE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE POSSIBILITY OF THE DRAGGING OF (INAUDIBLE) COULD BE A PRETTY HEAVY IMPACT ON 9TH STREET, INTERSECTIONS AND OTHERS.

I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME TO MAKE A CHANGE ON IT MYSELF.

>> THIS IS A UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S WHY PILOT J WANTED TO BE HERE, FLYING J WE'VE HAD OTHER PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE THERE. IT DESERVES MORE ANALYSIS AND STUDY. WE HAVE LOTS OF INDUSTRIAL ZONES OUT THERE.

I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF A GLOBAL CHANGE OF THIS NATURE. MAYBE A MIXED USE FORMAT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, MOTIONS?

>> IF YOU'RE READY FOR A MOTION, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION WE DENY THE REQUEST.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A SECOND.

I WILL CALL THE VOTE. CHAIRMAN ALTMAN. AYE.

>> COMMISSIONER ROGERS. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER HILL.

>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN. NAY

>> THIS IS A VOTE TO DENY. >> OKAY. THEN AYE.

SO THE MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION CARRIES 5-2. THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE. THE NEXT ITEM CONSIDER AN ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A

[007 52.399 acres of the Martha Brenan Survey, Abstract No. 43 of Ellis County, Texas. The property is generally located at the intersection of 14th Street and Ashford Lane (Case No. PP05-2021-31).]

PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RIDGEPOINT ADDITION, BEING 52 ACRES OF THE MARTHA BRENAN SURVEY.

14TH STREET AND ASHFORD LANE. >> THANK YOU. RECENTLY THIS WAS REZONED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2017-83. RIGHT OF A WAY DESIGNATION HAS BEEN SHOWN.

[01:25:27]

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, MOTIONS? >> YES, SIR.

I HAVE A QUESTION. WE HAVE COMMON AREAS HERE THAT LOOK LIKE THEY'RE SIDEWALKS.

IS THAT TRUE? >> THAT WE HAVE COMMON AREAS. >> ARE WE CALLING SIDEWALKS

COMMON AREA IN THIS DEVELOPMENT? >> WHICH? I GUESS I WOULD NEED MORE SPECIFICS ON WHICH AREA YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING.

THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS WHERE THE SIDEWALKS, WE HAVE COMMON AREAS THAT ARE TRAILS WITHIN THIS PLAT. THE TRAILS ARE NOTED AS COMMON AREAS ON -- NOTED ON THIS PLAT AS COMMON AREAS. I DON'T SEE THE SIDEWALKS BEING MARKETED AS A COMMON AREA.

>> WHAT IS COMMON AREA 1? COMMON AREA 3. >> JUST ONE SECOND.

>> FOR THE RIDGEPOINT PLAT, RIGHT? ARE YOU LOOKING AT --

>> LOOKING AT RIDGEPOINT. >> WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ALONG THESE AREAS.

THIS IS ALONG 14TH STREET, THE COMMON AREAS THAT YOU'RE SEEING.

ALSO ADJACENT TO THE LOTS WHERE WE HAVE A COMMON AREA FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE WALL AND THE LANDSCAPING THAT IS GOING BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE DEVELOPMENT WALL.

>> WE'RE CALLING THAT COMMON AREA? >> WE DO CALL THOSE AREAS

COMMON AREAS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> SIDEWALK IS A SEPARATE

INSTRUMENT. JUST OUTSIDE OF THAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THIS NOT BEING A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE DO NOT NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.

>> ROLL CALL. >> THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NUMBER 8. CONSIDER AN ACT UPON A REQUEST

[008 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat of Coventry Crossing Phase 3, being +/-28.109 acres out of the Amasa Howell Survey, Abstract No. 525 and the JD Enlow Survey, Abstract No. 346. The property is generally located east of FM 663 and south of McAlpin Road (Case No. PP06-2021-32).]

FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COVENTRY CROSSING PHASE THREE, 28 ACRES.

>> THANK YOU. THE PROPOSED PLAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, 37 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SIX COMMON AREA LOTS. THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BACK FEBRUARY 20TH, 2018, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED PHASE TWO OF COVENTRY CROSSING.

FEBRUARY 19, 2019, THE APPLICANT CAME IN TO REQUEST A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION FOR PHASE TWO. AND PHASE THREE, THAT EXTENSION WAS GRANTED.

PHASE TWO IS APPROVED AND ACCEPTED IN APRIL OF 2020. HOWEVER, PHASE THREE WAS NOT COMPLETED AND EXPIRED PRIOR TO THEM COMING BACK IN TO ASK FOR ANOTHER EXTENSION.

FOR THAT REASON, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REOPEN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PHASE THREE. STAFF DID REVIEW THIS.

IT DOES MEET ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS. AS MANDATED IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGULATIONS AND IN THE SPECIFIC PD ORDINANCE THAT REGULATES THIS PROPERTY.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR MOTIONS? >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> IF YOU'RE READY TO MAKE A MOTION OR A COMMENT. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER BATEMAN.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROGERS.

>> ROLL CALL. >> ALL RIGHT. THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED

[01:30:06]

UNANIMOUSLY. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 9.

[009 Consider and act upon a request for a special exception from Section 6.11.9(d) of the City of Midlothian Subdivision Regulations to exceed the maximum block length requirement of 1,320 feet. The proposed streets are located in Coventry Crossing Phase Three, Blocks D & E (Case No. M04-2021-033).]

WHICH IS TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 6.11.9 D OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH REQUIREMENTS OF 320 FEET. LOCATED IN COVENTRY CROSSING, PHASE THREE.

PHASE THREE. BLOCKS D&E. ALL RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR BOTH BLOCK LINKS FOR D AND E, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LENGTH OF 1,320 FEET.

THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THESE EXCEED IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE ROAD CROSSINGS THAT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE WATER ELEVATION IN THE EXISTING CREEK THAT IS ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE. AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE MAXIMUM LENGTH NOT EXCEED 1,888 FEET IN LENGTH.

WITH THAT, I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> ISN'T THE PURPOSE FOR THIS, ONE OF THEM IS YOU DON'T WANT LONG LIKE JUST LOOKS LIKE LONG STRAIGHT LINES OF HOUSE AFTER

HOUSE. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> SO THIS IS BROKEN UP WITH

GREEN SPACE IN THE MIDDLE, THAT HELPS ACTUALLY >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> WE'RE NOT CREATING THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID. >> YEAH.

WE LIKE THE IDEA OF KEEPING THAT NATURAL AMENITY IN THERE AS WELL.

YOU'VE GOT A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 400 FEET, BREAKING THAT UP.

SO WE THINK IT'S A GOOD FIT. >> LOTS OF CURVY STREETS IN THERE TOO.

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

>> MOVE APPROVAL. >> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER BATEMAN.

I WILL SECOND THAT. SECOND WITH A CONDITION. CALLING TO VOTE.

>> (ROLL CALL) NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

[010 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat of Redden Farms, being 253.43± acres out of the Benjamin Monroe Survey, Abstract No. 1333; FE Witherspoon Survey, Abstract No. 1188; WG Stewart Survey, Abstract No. 1245; and Coleman Jenkins Survey, Abstract No. 556, City of Midlothian. The property is located west of Walnut Grove Road, between U.S. Highway 287 and FM 1387 (Case No. PP04-2021-30).]

>> NEXT ITEM, 10. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT, BENJAMIN

MONROE SURVEY. >> THE PROPOSED APPLICATION THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, REDDEN FARMS. I HAVE TO STOP MYSELF. COMMISSIONER STEVENSON DOES NEED TO RECUSE HERSELF FROM THIS ITEM SINCE SHE IS AN ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER.

>> WE REALIZED THE OTHER DAY, I WAS AN ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER. YOU DON'T HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF. MATERIAL INTEREST. IF YOU DON'T HAVE MATERIAL INTEREST, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. I MADE A MISTAKE THE OTHER DAY AND RECUSED MYSELF FROM A

HEARING. >> NOT NECESSARILY. BECAUSE OF THE NATURE, IF YOU'RE AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER (INAUDIBLE) MORE SO THAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD BE.

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE TYPICALLY (INAUDIBLE) DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST AS WELL. IN THIS CASE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SUBSTANTIAL PRELIMINARY PLAT ADJACENT TO SOMEONE'S PROPERTY. SO I THINK (INAUDIBLE)

>> SO IT'S KIND OF A CASE BY CASE BASIS? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, I'M SORRY. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM COUNCIL, YOU'RE NOT PERMITTED. SO YOU WILL HAVE TO RECUSE

YOURSELF ON THIS ONE, COMMISSIONER STEVENS >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, APPROXIMATELY 253 ACRES, LOCATED SOUTH OF 1387, BETWEEN NORTH WALNUT GROVE, DIRECTLY TO

[01:35:01]

THE WEST OF NORTH WALNUT GROVE ROAD. AND GROVE DEVELOPMENT.

THE REQUEST IS A PHASE PLAT. THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT HAS FOUR PHASES.

1A, 2B WITH THE PROPOSED EXPIRATION DATES, MARCH 31ST OF 2022, FOR PHASE 1A.

MARCH 31ST, OF 2024. AND SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2027, FOR 2B.

IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, THERE IS A BREAKDOWN OF EACH LOT WITHIN EACH ONE OF THESE PHASES. AS THESE PHASES ARE COMPLETED, THERE ARE CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT REQUIRE CERTAIN AMENITIES TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

THAT IS PART OF THE ZONING. I WANTED TO MENTION THAT. THEY WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT AND BUILD THOSE AMENITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PD 107.

THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE REQUEST THAT CHAIRMAN WILL READ FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. KIND OF GO OVER IT REAL QUICK. TRY TO HELP YOU BETTER UNDERSTAND. IT'S ON -- I APOLOGIZE. I GET TURNED AROUND ON THIS.

THIS MAP IS ACTUALLY TILTED SO YOU CAN FIT MORE ON TO IT. THE PROPOSED PROPERTY, COUNTRY SOUTH DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN -- I HAVE IT MARKED IN HERE. LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF 1B.

I APOLOGIZE. WHICH IS RIGHT THERE. THIS IS THEIR LOT.

THEY DID HAVE CONCERNS WHEN THIS WENT THROUGH THE ZONING APPLICATION PROCESS OF POTENTIAL RUNOFFS, DRAINAGE. POTENTIAL FLOODING ON THEIR PROPERTY.

THERE WAS A FLOOD EVENT THAT DID HAPPEN. I BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, WHEN WE HAD A LOT OF RAIN. OUR CITY ENGINEERS DID GO OUT THERE AND VISIT THE SITE. THE PLAT, THE DRAINAGE PLAN, FLOODPLAIN, VARIOUS, THESE VARIOUS CONCERNS WILL BE ADDRESSED DURING THE CIVIL PLANS PROCESS.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS ON THE ROAD THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE NOTING, THAT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THE CIVIL PLANS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE LOOKING AT. I KNOW IT'S ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. HE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF IT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ACTIVELY LOOKING AT AS THIS DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES FORWARD. THE PROPOSED PLAT DOES MEET ALL OF OUR REGULATIONS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. DEDICATE ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRECTLY AND ACCURATELY AS SHOWN IN THE THOROUGHFARE, AS WELL AS APPROVED PD.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE DO HAVE A COMMENT FROM A

NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. >> SO I CAN READ THAT INTO THE RECORD, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A

PUBLIC HEARING. >> THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION. THEY WOULD BE HERE.

BUT DUE TO COVID, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE THEIR HOUSE. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. LET ME GO AHEAD AND READ THIS THEN.

BECAUSE THIS MAY RAISE QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

THIS IS FROM PAM HORN, WHO RESIDES AT 340 DAISY ROAD. I SPOKE AT AN EARLIER MEETING TO MAKE THE COUNCIL AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES, PROPERTY LINES, THE GREEN SPACE IN THE PLAT ENCROACHES ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE RESIDENTS ON THE EAST SIDE.

FLOODING, THE CREEK GOING THROUGH THE PRIVATE PROPERTIES IN ITS CURRENT STATE FLOODS TO 70 FEET WIDE OR GREATER DURING SIGNIFICANT RAINSTORMS. AT THIS TIME THE CURRENT DOWNWARD SLOPE CAUSES HEAVY RUNOFF, WHICH IN TURN CAUSES SIGNIFICANT FLOODING.

THE NEW DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE PERMEABLE SURFACE.

THE VISUAL BARRIER. ASK DEVELOPER TO INCLUDE EVERGREEN TREE BARRIER.

TRAFFIC, RENDERING OF SUBDIVISION SHOWED ONLY ONE ENTRY EXIT POINT ON FARM TO

[01:40:01]

MARKET TO 1387, JUST EAST OF A DANGEROUS S CURVE. SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC FROM A 970 PLUS HOME SUBDIVISION.

SINCE SPEAKING AT THE MEETING, THE CREEK FLOODED ITS BANKS BY 70 FEET OR GREATER.

I CONTACTED THE CITY THE DAY AFTER THE FLOOD AND MIKE FROM THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. I TOLD HIM THEY WERE PLANNING TO BUILD A LARGE SUBDIVISION.

HE INFORMED ME THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND WOULD HAVE TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE. HE SAID THE PICTURES WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS. I HAVE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS OF BOTH OF MY RESIDENTS.

THIS SPECIFIC FLOODING EVENT WAS DOCUMENTED AND CONFIRMED BY A POLICE OFFICER VERIFYING DATA FOR FEMA. THAT IS MS. HORN'S STATEMENT. THIS IS THE AREA THAT SHE IS CONCERNED ABOUT, ABUTTING HER PROPERTY. THESE ARE CORRECT.

>> ON THE PD, WHAT SHE IS REFERENCING, OPEN SPACE HERE. IT SHOWED THAT SOME OF THE OPEN SPACE IS BLEEDING ON TO THEIR PROPERTIES, BUT THAT IS ALL ADJUSTED.

THE PLAT IS SHOWING THE CORRECT BOUNDARIES. THAT PART WAS ACCURATE BACK IN

THE DAY. >> (INAUDIBLE) >> IT WOULD BE STAFF INCLUDING

MIKE ADAMS, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. >> MR. ADAMS IS ON THE PHONE,

ISN'T HE? >> I BELIEVE HE IS STILL LOGGED IN.

IT WAS ACTUALLY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER THAT WAS AT THE SITE. >> THE FLOODING, THE CITY IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE ISSUES WITH THE WATER, SIMPLY ONE OF THE CASES WHERE IT WAS A BIG

FLOOD. >> RIGHT. IT WAS DEFINITELY AN ANOMALY.

I MEAN, THAT IS WHAT WE ENGINEER FOR. WHAT WE PREPARE FOR.

WE WERE CALLED OUT THERE SO WE COULD VIEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THE GROUND.

SCOTT MURPHY TOOK PICTURES. SOMETHING THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED DURING THE CIVIL

PLANS DURING THIS PROCESS. >> IN THAT CASE, I MOVE APPROVAL.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER BATEMAN. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HILL.

CALL THE VOTE. >> ROLL CALL >> SO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS

[011 Consider and act upon the extension of a Preliminary Plat for Jordan Run, Phase IV, being 98.332± acres of land, situated within the E. Ballard Survey, Abstract No. 119; J. Smith Survey, Abstract No. 963; J. Johnson Survey, Abstract No. 558; and the J. Singleton Survey, Abstract No. 959, Ellis County, generally located to the east of Norrell Road, between FM 875 and Murr Road (Case No. M05-2021-39).]

APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO CONSIDER AN ACT UPON THE EXTENSION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JORDAN RUN, PHASE 4, 98.33 ACRES.

GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN EAST OF NORRELL ROAD. >> REQUESTED TO EXTEND PHASE FOUR OF JORDAN ROAD. CHANGED WITH THE TEXT AMENDMENT LAST MONTH, THEY HAVE RECEIVED ONE EXTENSION. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION AND WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. NO PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THEN.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROGERS. CALL THE VOTE.

ROLL CALL. >> ALL RIGHT. THE EXTENSION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO CONSIDER AN ACT UPON A REQUEST

[012 Consider and act upon a request to allow for a shared driveway access onto McAlpin Road for two single-family residential lots, being approximately ±13.051 acres out of the N.N. J.J. and B.L. Edwards Survey, Abstract No. 340. The property is located at 3061 and 3071 McAlpin Road (Case No. M06-2020-40).]

TO ALLOW FOR A SHARED DRIVEWAY FOR TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED AT 3061 AND 3071

MCALPIN ROAD. >> WHENEVER A DRIVEWAY IS BEING REQUESTED, WITHIN THE THOROUGH FARE PLAN, IT IS REQUIRED TO GET PERMISSION THROUGH THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE REQUESTS. WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY WERE PROPOSING DRIVEWAYS TO (INAUDIBLE) WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS.

WE DO FEEL THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE USING ONE DRIVE-WAY FOR TWO DIFFERENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, IT'S DECREASING FUTURE DRIVES. AND THAT IS OUR GOAL.

WE WANT LESS DRIVEWAYS ON ACCESS ON THESE MAJOR THOROUGH FARES.

SO WE DO FEEL LIKE THIS IS A BENEFIT OF BEING ABLE TO HAVE ONE DRIVEWAY FOR TWO

[01:45:02]

RESIDENTIAL LOTS. IT MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND WITHIN THE ZONING REGULATIONS.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> ANY QUESTIONS, MOTIONS? >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOHLER. CALL THE VOTE.

>> ROLL CALL. >> >> THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NUMBER 13, TO CONSIDER AND ACT

[013 Consider and act upon a request to allow for direct residential driveway access onto FM 875 relating to the development of ±6.033 acres for a single-family residential use out of the N.N. J.J. and B.L. Edwards Survey, Abstract No. 340. The property is located at 3421 East FM 875 (Case No. M03-2021-20).]

UPON A REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ACCESS ON FARM TO MARKET 875,

LOCATED AT 3421 FARM TO MARKET 875. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR THIS FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

DIRECTLY ON TO FM 875, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN. THOROUGH FARE DOES CLASSIFY THIS ROAD AS A RURAL PARKWAY. APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST IS REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THIS IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW WITH THEM.

THE APPLICANT WILL MEET ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS. ONE THING TO NOTE ON HERE IS WITHIN OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, WHEN YOU DO HAVE A DIRECT DRIVE ACCESS ON TO A MAJOR ROAD LIKE THIS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST 150 FEET BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS.

WITH THAT SAID, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF CONDITIONS ON HERE. WE WANT THAT DRIVE APPROACH TO MEET THE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. AND THAT THAT DRIVEWAY PLACEMENT BE APPROVED BY OUR CITY ENGINEER AS WELL. WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS, MOTIONS? >> (INAUDIBLE) >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLER.

CALL THE VOTE. >> ROLL CALL. >> THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NUMBER 14, CONSIDER A PUBLIC

[014 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) amending Ordinance No. 2001-54 granting a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a gasoline station with retail sales (SUP 6-2000-115) to increase the maximum building area and adopt the building elevations for the retail store (SUP05-2021-025).]

HEARING AND ACT UPON A USE FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, FOR A GASOLINE STATION WITH RETAIL SALES AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING AREA AND ADOPT THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR THE

RETAIL STORE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL RELATED TO THE EXPANSION OF THE CURRENT BUILDING BY 1,156 SQUARE FEET.

FOR THE EXISTING STORE AND RESTAURANT THAT IS ALREADY LOCATED ON-SITE.

THE PROPOSED EXPANSION WILL BE DESIGNED TO MATCH THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.

THIS IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE TWO AREAS THAT WILL BE EXPANDED.

THE PROPOSED EXPANSION DOES MEET ALL OF THE MINIMUM DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SIGNAGE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND UPON THE EXISTING SIGNAGE THAT IS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE DOES PROHIBIT ANY TYPE OF NEW CABINET CAPSULE OF ANY KIND. THE APPLICANT DOES PLAN TO REMOVE THE EXISTING CABINET BANDING THAT IS OUT THERE. EXPAND THE BUILDING AND THEN INSTALL NEW CABINET BANDING, ESSENTIALLY 154 SQUARE FEET OF THAT.

THIS WILL INCREASE THE OVERALL SIGNAGE WITHIN THIS AREA BY A TOTAL OF 34 SQUARE FEET.

WE DID SEND NOTIFICATIONS OUT TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE REGARDING THIS SUP REQUEST.

DUE TO THE TYPE OF SIGNAGE PROPOSED AND EXPANDED UPON, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS SUP AS PRESENTED. NOW, WITH THAT SAID, THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE TO US TODAY. THAT IS NOT IN YOUR PACKET. STAFF REVIEWED THIS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. WE DO FEEL THIS IS MORE IN LINE WITH OUR ORDINANCE.

I HAVE THAT UP HERE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IS TO KEEP TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE ALREADY HERE IN THE CITY.

NOT DO ANY BANDING ON THOSE EXPANDED AREAS OF THE BUILDING. SO AGAIN, I'M GOING TO FLIP BACK. THIS BANDING HERE, WHICH YOU WOULD SEE ALONG HIGHWAY 67, THE BANDING THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, THE BANDING THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IN BACK, WOULD NOT OCCUR WITH THIS NEW ITEM THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING HERE.

HERE THEY WOULD ACTUALLY JUST HAVE SOME LOVE'S LETTERS ON THE SIDE OF 67.

SOME MORE LETTERS ON THE SOUTH SIDE, FACING THE TIRE SHOP. AND THEN THEY WOULD NOT EXPAND THE BANDING FURTHER. THEY WOULD JUST PUT THESE LETTERS MADE UP OF SOME HEARTS ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. WE DO AGAIN THINK THAT IS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT OUR ZONING

[01:50:06]

ORDINANCE ALREADY REQUIRES. WITH THAT, I CAN STAND FOR QUESTIONS.

>> WITH THIS SECOND ONE, WOULD THEY BE KEEPING ALL OF THEIR ORIGINAL SIGNAGE THEN?

>> YES, SIR. >> (INAUDIBLE) >> YES, SIR.

ESSENTIALLY, ALL OF THAT OTHER SIGNAGE THAT IS OUT THERE, WHETHER IT'S LEGAL NON-CONFORMING OR A PART OF THE ORIGINAL SUP IS PROTECTED FOR THAT MATTER.

>> DID I UNDERSTAND YOU THAT, ARE WE GOING TO CHANGE THE STYLE OF THE FACADE OR WHAT ARE

WE DOING? >> SURE. NO. THE STYLE OF THE FACADE IS

STAYING THE EXACT SAME. >> SO IT IS GOING TO, IT WILL HAVE THE SAME APPEARANCE?

>> ABSOLUTELY. SAME BRICK COLOR. SAME FINISHED DETAILS ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING. NONE OF THAT IS CHANGING. HOPEFULLY, THE BRICKS SHOULD MATCH EXACTLY. YOU KNOW, LOVE'S WAS BUILT IN 2001.

>> I THINK I JUST MISUNDERSTOOD YOU. WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE WHITE STRIP. IT SOUNDED LIKE WE WERE ELIMINATING IT TO ALLOW FOR

LETTER STRUCTURES. >> WELL, TO AN EXTENT COUNCILMAN ROGERS, THIS BANDING THAT THEY WANT TO PUT UP HERE THAT WOULD BE BRAND NEW BANDING ON THAT AREA, THAT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT CONFORM TO OUR CURRENT SIGN STANDARD. SO WE WOULD PREFER THAT THAT NOT HAPPEN. THEY WOULD ACTUALLY COME IN AND DO THIS INSTEAD OF WHAT THEY

ORIGINALLY PROPOSE OR AT LEAST WHAT WAS SHOWN IN YOUR PACKET. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR ADD-ON IS GOING TO MATCH WHAT THEY HAD BEFORE. I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LETTER SIZE OR THE LETTERS. I UNDERSTAND THEY NEED TO CONFORM.

BUT BRICK FACADE, STRIPS, ALL OF THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT MATCH.

>> SURE. >> I'M NOT TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO EITHER.

I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS. >> ABSOLUTELY. I THOUGHT I HAD THE EXTENDER HERE ALSO. LET ME POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE.

THIS BANDING IS GOING TO STAY. THAT BANDING WOULD TERMINATE. AND IT WOULD NOT GO ANY FURTHER. THEY WOULD JUST ACTUALLY COME IN WITH (INAUDIBLE) EVERYBODY KEEP THAT IN MIND. THE BANDING THAT IS ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING --

>> WAS THEIR ORIGINAL PRESENTATION TO HAVE THAT BANDING?

>> THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION WAS TO HAVE BANDING. >> WHY WOULD WE WANT TO PROVIDE

FOR A CHANGE IN APPEARANCE? >> THAT MAINLY -- >> OBVIOUSLY WE'RE PLACING THAT

STANDARD UPON THEM. >> WELL, OUR STANDARD WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT BANDING.

>> OKAY. >> WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT BANDING.

>> WHY NOT? >> BECAUSE OUR ZONING ORDINANCE BASICALLY STATE NO BOX SIGNS, NO CLOUD SIGNS, NO BANDING OF ANY SORT, ILLUMINATED OR NON-ILLUMINATED.

EITHER WAY NOT PERMITTED. PROHIBITED, I GUESS I SHOULD SAY.

UNLESS YOU GO THROUGH AN SUP OR SOME SORT OF PD. BASICALLY AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL.

>> THANKS. >> NO PROBLEM. >> YOU'RE CONSIDERING THAT

BANDING LIKE A SIGNAGE, RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. THAT IS MAINLY BECAUSE THEY'RE EXPANDING THE BUILDING. LET ME GO BACK ONE STEP HERE ALSO.

IF THIS WASN'T EXPANDING AND THIS WASN'T EXPANDING, THEY JUST WANTED TO MAINTAIN THE BANDING, TAKE IT DOWN, PUT NEW UP. ABSOLUTELY.

THE MERE FACT THAT THEY'RE EXPANDING UPON THE BUILDING AND ALSO INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIGNAGE, THAT IS WHERE THE ZONING ORDINANCE COMES INTO PLAY.

>> WITH THE REVISION THAT THEY PROPOSED, YOU WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL?

>> WELL, YEAH, I THINK WE ABSOLUTELY FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE COULD ABSOLUTELY GET BEHIND THIS. YES, SIR.

>> QUESTION OF COUNCIL. WOULD AN APPROPRIATE MOTION BE TO DENY THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED AND ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL PRESENTED TO STAFF TODAY.

OR DO YOU DENY THIS ALL TOGETHER OR HOW DO WE GO ABOUT IT?

>> STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON THIS AS PRESENTED. >> IF THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO -- I MEAN, YOU CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL. NOT NECESSARILY -- I MEAN, WITH REVISED PROPOSAL, IF THAT IS WHAT STAFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND.

I THINK YOU CAN DO THE MOTION THAT WAY, IF YOU WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY.

>> NOT DO A DENIAL. >> SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU COULD MODIFY THE CHANGE.

I MEAN, YOU'RE STILL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF YOUR NOTICE. SO I BELIEVE YOU COULD

[01:55:05]

RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS CHANGED THROUGH THE REVISION. >> YEAH.

>> PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. >> THANK YOU.

>> (INAUDIBLE) THAT FACES 67, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.

>> ON THE NEW BUILDING OR IT'S NO BAND AND ANOTHER SIGN BUILT IN TO THE BUILDING THAT SAYS

LOVE'S. >> IT'S A BAND ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING BAND, BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS BEING EXTENDED OUT HERE, YOU GET THAT MUCH MORE BANDING. THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE.

>> RIGHT. >> AND AS THE ALTERNATIVE, THE BANDING, NO BANDING HAPPENS.

THEY ACTUALLY LOSE THE BANDING ULTIMATELY. SOME SECTIONS.

ON SOME SECTIONS. AND YOU END UP WITH CHANNEL LETTERS, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY A

PART OF WHAT OUR ZONING ORDINANCE CALLS FOR. >> HOW MUCH TOTAL SIGNAGE DO THEY HAVE NOW BECAUSE THEY GOT THE -- THEY'RE NOT EXCEEDING THEIR MAXIMUM SIGNAGE AT THIS

POINT, ARE THEY? >> IF YOU COMPARE IT TO CURRENT LIKE OUR CURRENT STANDARDS, TODAY, BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THIS BUILDING, IT FALLS UNDER 11,000 SQUARE FEET.

SO THEY REALLY CANNOT GO OVER 150 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE. WHAT THEY'RE ADDING NEW IS 154 SQUARE FEET. SO YEAH. LOVE'S HAS, ALL OF THEIR SIGNAGE IS PROTECTED. BUT THEY COMPLETELY BLOW ALL OTHER BUILDINGS IN OUR CITY OUT OF THE WATER WHEN IT COMES TO SIGNAGE. WE JUST LIKE THE IDEA OF IT COMING INTO COMPLIANCE FOR THE NEW AREA. THE NEW SECTION.

>> MY LAST QUESTION, AND YOU'RE VERY GOOD AT EXPLAINING ALL OF THIS, YOU'RE THE WEALTH OF

INFORMATION OF THE SIGNAGE. >> RIGHT. >> SO IT'S SUCH A SMALL ADDITION, AND EXPLAIN TO ME WE VIEW THE BAND AS SIGNAGE EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NOT A SIGN IN

IT. >> ABSOLUTELY. YES, SIR.

I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. IT'S A BRANDING. BRANDING.

PART OF THEIR LOGO. >> I GUESS WHERE I'M HAVING A PROBLEM IS WHY WE WOULDN'T, I GET IT IF THERE IS A SIGN IN IT. I GUESS I HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM WHEN THINGS DON'T MATCH. IT THROWS ME OFF WHEN IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY HAS ADDED ON AND I'M LIKE WHY DID THEY DO THAT? WHY DIDN'T THEY CONTINUE THEIR SAME THEME.

I UNDERSTAND ON THE LETTER PORTIONS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THAT TO ME IS SIGNAGE. BUT I GUESS I'LL JUST AGREE WITH WHATEVER THE BALANCE OF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO GO WITH. BECAUSE I'M LOST ON ALL OF

THIS. THANKS FOR THE EXPLANATION. >> OKAY.

>> MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS IN LINE WITH YOU AS WELL. (INAUDIBLE) I WANT TO GO BACK TO A PREVIOUS CASE WE HAD EARLIER THIS YEAR. JEWELRY STORE.

KAY'S. YEAH. WE HAD ALL KINDS OF STUFF GOING ON WITH THEIR SIGNAGE. AND THEIR REQUEST WAS TO CHANGE THE SIGN AND UPDATE IT.

I KNOW WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE SIGN. WAS THERE ANYTHING DICTATED BY WHAT THEY DID TO THE BUILDING THAT ALLOWED THEM TO CHANGE THE SIGN?

>> NO. THE WALL SIGNAGE COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THE EXISTING POLE.

THAT WAS PROTECTED, MIND YOU. THE POLE SIGN WAS PROTECTED. WHAT THEY ASKED FOR WAS TO KEEP THE POLE SIGN, THEY DID NOT WANT TO BRING DOWN THE VERY TOP OF THAT POLE SIGN BECAUSE THERE IS A SECTION WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE THAT TALKS ABOUT ONCE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING POLE IS ALTERED OR MESSED WITH, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOSE THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING SIDE OF

THAT. >> WITH THIS ADDITION THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN, ARE THERE ANY OTHER STANDARDS THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO AS A CITY TO BRING THE BUILDING FORWARD?

>> JUST SETBACKS. I MEAN, THEIR MEETING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

OTHER THAN THAT, WE DON'T REGULATE MASONRY MATERIAL. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> THEY'RE OVER PARKED AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW. >> NEW SIGNING REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE AS A CITY THAT WE MAY NEED TO ADHERE TO BECAUSE THEY'RE ADDING SQUARE FOOTAGE.

DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> ASK THEM TO TAKE DOWN THE

[02:00:05]

POLE SIGN. >> YEAH. I DON'T THINK SO.

>> WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF -- >> IT WOULD BE A STRETCH. >> I WOULD LOVE TO.

>> IT'S A THOUSAND. IT IS OVER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

>> WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE TO THE EXISTING ZONING THAT IS THERE?

>> LET'S SEE. THE EXISTING BUILDING WOULD BE, I GOT TO DO THE MATH ON THAT REAL QUICK. THEY'RE DOING A TOTAL OF -- THAT IS 13 PERCENT.

BASED ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT BEING 8,855. THAT INCREASE, WAIT.

NO. I'M SORRY. HOLD ON. YOU'RE ASKING FOR, WHAT IS THAT

PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE -- 13 PERCENT ACTUALLY. >> INCREASING THE BUILDING SIZE. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDING SPACE BY 13 PERCENT.

>> YES, SIR. ABSOLUTELY. >> DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO

PRESENT ON THIS TOPIC? >> YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS OUT OF STATE RIGHT

NOW. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAS NOT ALREADY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? SEEING NONE, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROGERS.

CALL THE VOTE. >> ROLL CALL. >> PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW

CLOSED. >> DISCUSSION. >> (INAUDIBLE

>> OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL OF THESE LOVE'S LIKE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

AND THE HIGHWAY. INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SIGNAGE AGAIN AND AGAIN

AROUND THE BUILDING. >> DID YOU WANT TO PUT THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION?

>> STAFF DENIED IT. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED IN THEIR ORIGINAL

SUBMITTAL. >> (INAUDIBLE) >> Y'ALL ARE APPROVING THESE ELEVATIONS. THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO.

THE NEW BANDING, A BANDING ON THE SIDE AND THE BANDING TO BE EXPANDED ALSO.

THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS THAT STAFF IS IN DENIAL OF. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE CALLING DID CABINET BOX SIGNAGE. >> YES, SIR.

ABSOLUTELY. >> SECOND FOR THE MOTION. >> CALL THE VOTE.

COMMISSIONER >> ROLL CALL. >> SO THE APPLICATION CARRIES 4-3. ALL RIGHT. ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE

[015 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for an accessory structure exceeding the maximum allowed floor area to be located on Lot 3R, Whispering Hills Estates Addition, Phase 2 (commonly known as 2201 Ashford Lane), presently zoned Single Family-One (SF-1) District (Case No. SUP06- 2021-026).]

AGENDA IS TO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED FLOOR AREA.

[02:05:01]

>> APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN SUP FOR A NEW 3,000 SQUARE FOOT METAL ACCESSORY BUILDING.

THE ORDINANCE DOES STATE THAT LOTS LARGER THAN ONE ACRE, BUT SMALLER THAN TWO ACRES, IN SIZE ARE REQUIRED -- THEY REQUIRE THAT ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS NOT EXCEED 75 PERCENT OF THE FIRST FLOOR AREA OR FOUR PERCENT OF THE WHOLE LOT, WHICHEVER IS LESS.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WITH A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, THIS RESIDENT WOULD BE EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT BY 979 SQUARE FEET. HERE IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED METAL BUILDING. LOCATION WILL MEET ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS.

PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS DO APPEAR TO MEET ALL REGULATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA. WE DID SEND NOTIFICATIONS OUT TO ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. 19 LETTERS TO BE EXACT. TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER IN OPPOSITION FROM WITHIN THE 200-FOOT BUFFER AREA.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE SUP, AS THIS REQUEST ABSOLUTELY EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM NEEDED BY THIS ORDINANCE. IF THE COMMISSION DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THAT THIS BE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING AND NOT BE USED FOR (INAUDIBLE) AND IT BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ONLY.

WITH THAT, I CAN STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> GENERALLY THEY HAVE TO DO

MASONRY COVERING ON THIS, RIGHT? >> NO, SIR.

>> THE LETTER OF OPPOSITIONS, ADJOINING NEIGHBOR OR SOMEBODY DOWN THE ROAD?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. I BELIEVE IT'S ADJOINING NEIGHBOR.

YES, SIR. >> ANYMORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF NOT, DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT. PLEASE COME UP, MA'AM AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. AND GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS IS RIGHT HERE.

>> YES. I AM BRANDY NEWCOMER. WE DO MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. WE ARE WANTING TO BE ABLE TO PUT OUR MOTOR HOME ENCLOSED, WHICH IS 26-FEET IN LENGTH. TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THE CITY REQUIRES, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HOLD OUR PONTOON BOAT AND TRAILERS WITHIN THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE.

THAT IS WHY I WENT AHEAD AND APPLIED FOR THE SUP. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING AREAS, PRIOR TO US BEING ANNEXED IN 2017, THERE ARE BUILDINGS IN OUR AREA THAT DO EXCEED THAT. I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR YOU TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION

FOR APPROVAL. >> IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH HAVE A METAL

BUILDING. EAST. >> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. THE PROPERTY TO THE LEFT, ADJOINING, BEHIND AND TO THE CORNER, YES, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK THAT HAS NOT SIGNED UP? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECONDED. >> ROLL CALL.

>> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. DISCUSSION, CONCERNS, COMMENTS

ABOUT THESE. >> THIS IS AN AREA THAT WAS ANNEXED RECENTLY.

I'M ASSUMING THERE ARE A NUMBER, ME BEING SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA, IF YOU WERE TO GOOGLE OUT A COUPLE OF SQUARE MILES, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF I'M ASSUMING LARGER

[02:10:01]

METAL BUILDING OUT IN THAT AREA. >> PROBABLY SO.

TO GIVE US A GENERAL IDEA OF THAT AREA, BUT I WOULD BELIEVE SO.

COUNCILMAN ROGERS. OR COMMISSIONER ROGERS. >> EXCEEDING BY 20 PERCENT.

IT'S NOT LIKE A CASE OF TRIPLE OR DOUBLE. >> STAFF IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INCH. MY FEELING IS IT'S A LEGITIMATE REQUEST.

THEREFORE, I MOVE APPROVAL. >> OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HILL.

CALL THE VOTE. >> ROLL CALL. THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED

UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA

[016 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending and restating the development regulations for the Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a petroleum storage facility and the use of rail tanker cars granted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-26 as applicable to, on Lot 1, Block 4, RailPort Business Park Addition; extending the application of said Specific Use Permit to Lot 2, Block 4, RailPort Business Park Addition (commonly known as 2900 Kemp Ranch Road), said properties being located within a Medium Industrial (MI) District and Heavy Industrial (HI) District (Case No. SUP07- 2021-041).]

IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY AND THE USE OF RAIL TANKER CARS PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 2013-26 IN THE RAIL PORT BUSINESS PARK, AND SAID PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN A MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL

DISTRICT. >> IN ACCORDANCE TO SECTION 2.04 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE PROPOSED USE DOES REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, BOTH THE MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY THAT YOU SEE RIGHT HERE, THIS PORTION CURRENTLY DEVELOPED, CURRENTLY HAS AN EXISTING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2015, I BELIEVING I BELIEVE. WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TODAY IS TO EXPAND THEIR EXISTING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO INCORPORATE THIS LOT THAT IS DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF IT.

WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO IS TO RUN A RAIL SPUR COMING OFF THIS EXISTING RAIL LINE DOWN THROUGH THIS PROPERTY, INTO THIS ALREADY DEVELOPED AREA. THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, THE ORDINANCE, WE AMENDED AND RESTATED THE ORDINANCE, REPEALING THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE. WE KEPT ALL OF THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS ALREADY APPROVED. WE DID INCLUDE IT IN THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.

LOT 2 TO LOT 1. THEY WILL PROVIDE ALL OF THE REQUIRED SCREENING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE. EXISTING SECURITY FENCING THAT HAS A BARBED WIRE ON THE FRONT.

DECORATIVE ROD IRON FENCE ON THE FRONT. WITH THE NECESSARY LANDSCAPING IN THE FRONT OF THAT. ANY FUTURE EXPANSION, OVER HERE, WHICH IS LOT 2, RIGHT NOW LOT 1 IS ALREADY FULLY DEVELOPED. ALREADY BUILT.

ANY FUTURE EXPANSION UNDER LOT 2, SUCH AS BUILDINGS, WILL REQUIRE THEM TO REOPEN UP THE ORDINANCE, SUP AND COME BACK THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THAT INCLUDES ANY STORAGE OR TANKERS. NO STORAGE ALLOWED ON LOT 2. THEY DO WISH TO DO ANY STORAGE, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK AND REOPEN THE ORDINANCE. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

WE DID NOTICE ANY PROPERTY OWNERS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR

STAFF? >> CONCERNS? >> WOULD THE APPLICANT WISH TO

MAKE A PRESENTATION? >> INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND STATE YOUR ADDRESS.

>> GOOD EVENING. JASON, WITH BUCKLEY OIL. I LIVE AT 209 HILLSTONE DRIVE.

JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS, WHEN LOOKING AT THE FENCING AND THE LANDSCAPING, EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR CURRENT PROPERTY. SO FENCING WILL BE THE SAME.

LANDSCAPING WILL BE THE SAME. SPACING WILL BE THE SAME. EVERYTHING WILL BE CONSISTENT.

A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS, THE RAILCARS, 2020 HAS BEEN AN INTERESTING YEAR FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. BUT IT HAS FORCED US INTO THIS DIVERSIFICATION.

[02:15:02]

WE HAVE PICKED UP SOME CONTRACTING. THE RAILCARS COMING IN WILL REDUCE THE TRAFFIC BY FOUR TRUCKLOADS PER RAIL CAR. THIS RAIL SPUR WILL OPEN UP THE DOOR TO REDUCE OUR TRUCKLOAD BY 540 TRUCKS. IT IS GOOD FOR TRUCK TRAFFIC.

I'VE HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION OVER IN BOUND AND OUTBOUND TRUCKS.

THIS WILL HELP INBOUND AND OUTBOUND TRAFFIC FOR RAIL PORT. OTHER THAN THAT, PRODUCTS WILL BE CONSISTENT. OPERATION WILL BE CONSISTENT. THE RAILCARS WILL BE USED FOR TRANSITIONING IN THE TRUCKS AND TRANSPORTING OUT TO OUR DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.

IT'S NOT FOR LONG TERM STORAGE. THAT IS ALL I'VE GOT. >> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. >> QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? IS THERE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAS NOT SIGNED A PARTICIPATION SHEET THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS TOPIC?

>> I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE BY COMMISSIONER BATEMAN. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROGERS. CALL THE VOTE.

>> ROLL CALL. >> I MOVE APPROVAL. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER BATEMAN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HILL. CALL THE VOTE.

ROLL CALL. >> THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA NUMBER 17 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

[018 Conduct a public hearing, consider, and act upon an ordinance amending regulations relating to the use and development of 16.175± acres located in and zoned as Planned Development District No. 50 (PD-50). The property is generally located south of U.S. Hwy 287 and ±2,400 feet west of Airport Drive (Z04-2021-035).]

THE NEXT ITEM, NUMBER 18, CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ACT UPON ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 16.17 ACRES. 2400 FEET WEST OF AIRPORT

DRIVE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE EXISTING USE REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING NEW SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS. THIS WILL REMOVE THE PERMITTED GOLF COURSE USE AND INSTEAD ALLOW FOR AN ATHLETIC GYM FACILITY, FUTURE RESTAURANT, RETAIL OFFICE USES, AS WELL AS A FUTURE PLANT NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR BUSINESS WITH ANCILLARY USES. THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WILL REQUIRE ALL FUTURE SITE PLANS ELEVATIONS, LANDSCAPING TO BE APPROVED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE ZONING AMENDMENT.

THE APPLICANT, I DO WANT TO STATE THIS, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY STATED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. WE WERE TALKING TO THE APPLICANT EARLIER.

THEY DID WANT TO MAKE ONE CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE AND ALLOW FOR ALL FUTURE SITE PLANS TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THAT IS ONLY IF THESE FUTURE PLANS DO WARRANT LIKE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR A VARIANCE WOULD THAT ACTUALLY ELEVATE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. AND CITY COUNCIL.

AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, THAT IS HOW WE HAVE WRITTEN THE ORDINANCE, ANY FUTURE SITE PLANS, WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE BY A FULL AMENDMENT. HAS TO COME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. ULTIMATELY GET APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

I'LL CONTINUE ON. WE CAN TOUCH ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.

FUTURE LAND USE MAP DOES SHOW THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN A REGIONAL MODULE.

THIS MODULE DOES EXPECT A MIXTURE OF WORK, ENTERTAINMENT AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, INCLUDING MAJOR HIGHWAYS, WE DEFINITELY DO FEEL THAT THIS PROPOSAL MEETS THESE AMENDMENTS, WILL ABSOLUTELY MEET THE INTENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THE INITIAL PHASE WHICH I SHOW BACK ON THE SITE PLAN HERE, THIS INITIAL PHASE WILL INCLUDE A 14,000 SQUARE FOOT ATHLETIC COMPLEX.

THEY WILL BUILD AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT PRACTICE FIELD MADE OF TURF MATERIAL.

THIS WILL INCLUDE BASKETBALL COURTS. EXTERIOR OF THE FACADE WILL BE STONE, METAL AND SIDING. OTHER ELEMENTS THAT THEY PLAN TO INCLUDE, YOU'LL SEE THE VARYING ROOF HEIGHTS, WINDOWS ON ALL FOUR SIDES. STEEL CANOPIES.

DECORATIVE UP/DOWN LIGHTING. PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS INTENDED TO BE MORE OF WHAT WE CONSIDER A TEMPORARY DESIGN, WITH A LOWER PITCHED METAL ROOF. THERE IS ONLY ONE DRIVE CUT THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED ON TO U.S. HIGHWAY 287 TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

TIAA WILL BE REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF A TURN LANE ALONG U.S. 287 IS GOING TO BE

[02:20:04]

WARRANTED. TXDOT WILL NEED TO APPROVE ALL ACCESS AND DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL. PER OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE UP HERE ON THE SCREEN, ANY NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING REQUIRES MASONRY SCREENING. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING TREE LINES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IN ADDITION TO PRESERVING THOSE EXISTING TREE LINES, THE APPLICANT WILL INSTALL A SIX-FOOT TALL VEGETATIVE SCREEN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THESE WOULD BE MADE OF EVERGREEN TYPE SPECIES.

THAT IS MAINLY TO THICKEN THAT WESTERN SIDE AREA. BECAUSE IT'S THINNED OUT ON THAT SIDE. AS WE'LL SHOW ON HERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT IS OBVIOUSLY CLOSEST TO THE ACTUAL GYM OR THE ATHLETIC COMPLEX THAT HE IS PLANNING TO BUILD.

THIS RIGHT HERE KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THAT WESTERN SIDE AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT THINNED OUT, ON THE EASTERN SIDE, IT IS PRETTY THICK. THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL ON THAT EASTERN SIDE OBVIOUSLY ACTS AS A GOOD BUFFER BETWEEN NON-RESIDENTIAL USE AND THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE THAT IS ALREADY OUT THERE. LAND THAT IS IMPACTED BY DEVELOPMENT MUST CONNECT TO A CITY, BASICALLY OUR CITY'S SEWER LINE IF THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF A SEWER SYSTEM. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT ABSOLUTELY IS. A SEPTIC WAIVER IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THIS PROPERTY TO HAVE ON-SITE SEPTIC. WITHIN YOUR STAFF REPORT, I SHOULD SAY, WE DO HAVE A SUMMARY OF ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS, BASICALLY SHOWING WHAT PD 50 REQUIRED, VERSUS WHAT THOSE AMENDMENTS BASICALLY ARE DETAILED OUT AS.

I'M NOT SURE IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, FOR THE MOST PART, IT'S REALLY MORE ABOUT THE USES AS FAR AS SOME OF THE CHANGES BE SHOWN IN HERE. THERE'S SOME PARAGRAPHS DELETED.

JUST LOOKING AT ITEM NUMBER 7 IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, THEY DID HAVE A 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER. THE APPLICANT WOULD BE DOING MORE OF A 10-FOOT BUFFER.

THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES HERE. PARAGRAPH 11.

THAT IS WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT GROUND SIGNAGE MUST MEET THE COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. WE KEPT THAT INTACT. WE ARE NOT ALLOWING ANY TYPE OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGING SIGNAGE. WE DID SEND NOTIFICATIONS OUT TO ALL OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. WE SENT OUT 11 OF THOSE LETTERS.

TO DATE, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE. WITH THAT, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST AS PRESENTED AND I CAN STAND FOR QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> IS THIS A DEVELOPMENT THAT CAME BEFORE PREVIOUSLY THAT WAS ON 40-FOOT WIDE LOTS? OR AM I THINKING OF SOMETHING ELSE.

>> THIS IS SOMETHING ELSE. THIS WAS STRICTLY FOR A GOLF COURSE.

>> OKAY. I'VE GOT YOU NOW. >> MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVEN'T LET THE APPLICANT

GIVE A PRESENTATION. >> SORRY. >> I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS YOU MIGHT HAVE. ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING FOR ME?

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, SIR.

>> ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION? SEEING NONE? COMMISSIONER OSBORNE MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE.

I FOLLOW THE MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. ROLL CALL.

>> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. ANY DISCUSSIONS OR MOTIONS? (INAUDIBLE) WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE (INAUDIBLE) DO I HAVE A SECOND TO THAT?

>> (INAUDIBLE) SITE PLAN AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

[02:25:11]

COMMISSIONER ALTMAN, AYE. COMMISSIONER ROGERS. AYE.

>> COMMISSIONER HILL. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER OSBORNE?

AYE. >> THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NUMBER 19. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ACT

[019 Conduct a public hearing to consider and act upon an ordinance amending the regulations relating to the development and use of ±18.80 acres located in Planned Development District No. 81 (PD-81) and described in Exhibit “A” hereto by amending section 2(a) of Ordinance No. 2018-13 to authorize single-family residential as a permitted use and adopting development regulations and a Planned Development site plan. The property is generally located at the northeast corner of Hawkins Run Road and 14th Street (Z05-2021- 037).]

UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REGULATIONS OF RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED DISTRICT 81, ADOPTING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE

NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAWKINS RUN ROAD AND 14TH STREET. >> THANK YOU.

THIS ITEM HAS COME BEFORE YOU PREVIOUSLY, A COUPLE MONTHS BACK.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED VILLAS DEVELOPMENT. AT THE TIME WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TO DO IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE GENERALLY 45 FOOT WIDE LOTS. I BELIEVE THERE IS 97 LOTS IN TOTAL.

DURING THIS TIME, THE OPEN SPACE EXCEEDED A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING DISTRICT, GENERALLY OUR REQUIREMENT IS FIVE PERCENT.

THEY HAD APPROXIMATELY 17 PERCENT OF OPEN SPACE IN THE PREVIOUS PLAN.

THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT PROPER SCREENING WAS DONE WITH THEIR PROPERTY.

SO ONE OF THE CONDITIONS BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS TO PUT A WOODEN FENCE HERE, CHANGE SOME OF THESE LOTS AT FRONT ENTRY. AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION, THE APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION. THEY TOOK COUNCIL'S DIRECTION AND VARIOUS COMMENTS MADE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AND REDESIGNED THEIR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY WERE DIRECTED TO DO.

THE REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS ALSO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE BEING 50 FEET WIDE WITH EACH LOT. THEY DID DECREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS. TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS WENT DOWN TO, I APOLOGIZE.

JUST HAD THIS. AND I LOST IT. 90 LOTS.

ORIGINALLY PRESENTED WITH 96. NOW DOWN TO 90 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

HOWEVER DUE TO THE INCREASED LOT SIZE, THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE WAS ALSO DECREASED DUE TO THAT. HOWEVER, THEY ARE STILL EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM THRESHOLD OF FIVE PERCENT AND THEY'RE APPROXIMATELY 13 PERCENT OF OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT. ONE THING WE WANTED TO MAKE THIS A PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. ESPECIALLY BEING SO CLOSE TO METHODIST HOSPITAL.

THERE IS THE KROGER DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS GOING TO BE A SCHOOL TO THE SOUTH. THERE IS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OVER HERE.

KROGER OVER HERE. FM 663. AND 14TH.

SIDEWALKS ARE STILL BEING CONTINUED, WHERE THE SIDEWALKS ARE GOING TO BE EXPANDED INTO THE EXISTING 14TH STREET. HOWEVER, GOING THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, AS YOU USE THE SIDEWALKS, GOING INTO THE OPEN SPACE AREAS, THEY TRAVEL UNDER THIS COMMON AREA WALK AROUND HERE, DOWN THROUGH THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. SO THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT HAS THE SIDEWALKS ARE BUILT INTO THEIR SIDEWALKS. AND IT'S DESIGNED TO GO THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. IN ORDER TO MEET THE RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LAST TIME AND CITY COUNCIL, THEY ARE STILL USING A WOODEN PRIVACY FENCE, TOP BOARD, KICK BOARD. MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR FENCING REGULATIONS. BUT THEY'RE ALSO USING, IN OTHER AREAS, DECORATIVE ROD IRON FENCE, ABUTTS OPEN SPACE. THEY ARE MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.

THE PROPOSED, AFTER THEIR MEETING WITH COUNCIL, THIS IS A TYPICAL BUILDING ELEVATION, WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE. BUILDING ELEVATIONS ON 50-FOOT LOTS.

FLUSH WITH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE. THEY'RE STILL USING ENHANCED

[02:30:08]

LANDSCAPING TO EMPHASIZE THE OPEN SPACE EXISTING IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF TREES GOING TO BE PUTTING IN.

THEY WANT TO ENHANCE IT. THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THE BARE MINIMUM.

THEY WENT ABOVE WHAT OUR PD AMENDMENT REQUIRES. AND AFTER DISCUSSING, THEY'RE GOING TO BE HIGHLY DECORATIVE WITH THE MEDIANS ALSO DECORATED.

THESE ARE THE FENCE DESIGNS THAT THEY WILL HAVE THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HAD FROM DAY ONE, AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPER, IS RIGHT HERE IS THE PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR MISD, TO THE SOUTH. THEY HAVE BEEN IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH MISD. THE CITY STAFF HAS BEEN IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH THE INGRESS, EGRESS POINTS. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS ACTUALLY WORKING ON THEIR POINTS OF INGRESS EGRESS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

WE FEEL THAT THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE THIS COULD BE SHIFTED TO. THIS IS THE IDEAL SPOT FOR IT.

WE STILL RECOMMEND APPROVAL WHERE IT'S LOCATED HERE. WHEN THE SCHOOL GETS IN FURTHER DEVELOPMENT, THAT WILL BE ONE THING THAT THEY WILL ADDRESS AND THEY ARE LINING UP, AS WHAT WE TRIED TO DO WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS DO LINE UP FOR SAFETY PURPOSES. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. WE DID NOTICE ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. ZERO CAME BACK IN FAVOR, ZERO CAME BACK IN OPPOSITION.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. WE DID RECEIVE FEEDBACK WITH THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING IN SPEAK INTO YOUR MICS. AND TURN THEM OFF WHEN YOU'RE

DONE, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

>> THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS 40-FOOT WIDE LOTS PREVIOUSLY.

NOW THEY'RE 50 TO 55S. >> CORRECT. >> AND THERE WAS A COUPLE OF PROPERTY OWNERS, WHICH YOU COVERED BRIEFLY IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS ON THE EAST SIDE THAT HAD SOME ISSUES AND CONCERNS, TAKEN CARE OF WOODEN FENCING.

I HEARD YOU MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT IRON FENCING. SOUNDED LIKE BEING PROVIDED AROUND GREEN SPACE. I WOULD ASSUME THE UPPER NORTHEAST CORNER.

>> WE HAVE IT SO THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ABUTTING. >> WHAT WE DID ON THIS, IS THAT IN THE ORDINANCE, WE ACTUALLY REQUIRE ALL FUTURE WOODEN FENCES MATCH THIS FENCE.

>> DO YOU KNOW, SO ALL THOSE FENCES BE UP ON THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MAINTAIN OR DO THOSE

FALL WITHIN THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. >> THESE FENCES WILL BE PER PROPERTY OWNER OF HOW THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW. THIS PORTION OF THE FENCE IS IN

THE OPEN SPACE -- WILL BE DONE BY THE HOA. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYMORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> ALL OF THIS SURROUNDING USES TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER, THE SOUTH, SOUTHWEST CORNER AND THEN SOUTHEAST ARE STILL IN THE PD?

>> SO RIGHT HERE, PORTION OF THIS IS IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 81.

PD 81 NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. THE ONLY PART OF THAT IS RESIDENTIAL RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT HERE IS NOT PD 81. THERE ALSO A LITTLE SHITHER IN HERE, ENCLAVE, WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF PD 81, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME. THESE ARE ALSO OUTSIDE OF

PD-81. >> PREVIOUSLY WHERE WE HAD THE 40-FOOT LOTS WITH THE BUFFERS AND THE ALLEYS BETWEEN THOSE AREAS THAT CREATED THE SEPARATION, NOW WE HAVE A RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT IS COMPLETELY BACKING UP TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE OF WHAT WOULD

BE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? >> CORRECT. AS IT IS DESIGNED RIGHT NOW.

CORRECT. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? >> JONATHAN JOB, 320 HAWKINS

[02:35:06]

RUN ROAD. TRENTON MAKES A GREAT PRESENTATION.

I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO ADD. WE TRIED TO TAKE P&Z'S ADVICE TO UP THE LOTS A LITTLE BIT.

STILL PROVIDE QUALITY GREEN SPACE AND AMENITIES. I WILL NOTE, THE AREAS OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE BUTTING UP AGAINST COMMERCIAL WILL HAVE A MASONRY FENCE. I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

ANYTHING YOU NEED ME FOR. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> WE HAVE ONE PERSON IN SUPPORT AS A SPEAKER.

LEE WHITEHEAD. >> I'M THE MENTIONED NEIGHBOR FROM LAST TIME.

SO MY WIFE DEBRA AND I LIVE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE.

WE TALKED TO YOU ALL TWICE BEFORE AS THIS PROJECT HAS MATURED.

LAST TIME I MENTIONED WHILE WE CAN'T HELP LAMENT THE MOVEMENT OF OUR HOME FROM A RURAL SETTING TO A MORE DEVELOPED AREA, WE UNDERSTAND IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE LOCATION AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE NEW NEIGHBORS NO MATTER WHAT. WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS NEW PROPOSAL AND WE CAN SEE THE EFFORT THAT HAS GONE IN TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON OUR PROPERTY. THIS LOT STRUCTURE NOW PROVIDES FOR US TO HAVE TWO NEIGHBORS RATHER THAN THE PREVIOUS NINE. AND YOU KNOW, WE MENTIONED LAST TIME, AS YOU TALKED ABOUT, AND THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED, THE FENCING, THE UPKEEP IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HAD.

BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE FACED WITH A SITUATION WHERE YOU KNOW, OVER THE YEARS WHEN THESE FENCES DETERIORATE, WE'VE GOT TO PITCH IN ON THE MAINTENANCE COST OF THESE FENCES. AS I READ THIS APPLICATION, I MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE HOS WAS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE RUN. THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE. AT LEAST WITH THE COMMON AREA BEING CARED FOR BY THE HOA, STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. SO YOU KNOW, OUR CONCERNS HAVE BEEN LARGELY ADDRESSED.

AND FOR THAT, WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION TO MR. JOB, AS WELL AS THIS BOARD AND TO CITY COUNCIL. IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF BALANCING THE DESIRES OF THE DEVELOPERS WITHIN A REASONABLE PROTECTION OF THOSE OF US WHO LIVED HERE FOR MANY YEARS.

THERE IS ONE SMALL MODIFICATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AS WE CONSIDER THIS NEW LAYOUT.

THE PROPOSAL CALLS FOR THIS WONDERFUL LARGE PARK AREA. THAT ADJOINS OUR PROPERTY.

SIX-FOOT WOODEN FENCE. WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A SEVEN-FOOT FENCE, ALONG THE ENTIRE LONG, ESPECIALLY IN THE PARK AREA. IT LOOKS TO BE AN ENTICING POPULAR PLACE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OTHERS, POSSIBLY OTHERS.

IT BACKS UP TO THE BACK OF OUR HOUSE, WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY OUR BACKYARD.

WE WOULD YOU KNOW, LIKE TO PROTECT THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT FROM THAT MORE PUBLIC ACTIVITY.

SO IN CLOSING, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO COME BEFORE YOU AND AFFIRM OUR SUPPORT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. WITH DUE CONSIDERATION FOR OUR REQUEST ON THE FENCING HEIGHT.

AND TO SAY THANK YOU AGAIN TO THE BOARD, COUNCIL AND ALSO CERTAINLY TO MR. JOB, FOR THE OBVIOUS HARD WORK THAT HAS GONE IN TO CRAFTING THIS PLAN, WHICH IS SEEMINGLY BENEFICIAL FOR

EVERYBODY. SO THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MR. JOB. >> REAL QUICK. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THE

SEVEN-FOOT. >> HE HAS. OKAY.

>> ONE THING I FAILED TO MENTION, THE VERBIAGE RIGHT HERE ON THE SITE PLAN, THIS

WHOLE LENGTH WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. >> YEAH.

THAT WAS MY FAULT. I APOLOGIZE. >> ALL RIGHT.

ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS NOT SIGNED UP THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC.

IF NOT, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND MY COMMISSIONER OSBORNE. I WILL CALL THE VOTE. ROLL CALL.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. DO I HAVE ANY CONVERSATION, DISCUSSIONS, MOTIONS?

>> MAKE A MOTION. >> OKAY. I'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HILL. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OSBORNE. I'LL CALL THE VOTE.

[02:40:10]

ROLL CALL. >> THE VOTE CARRIES 6-1. >> ASSUMING THAT MOTION

(INAUDIBLE) >> CLARIFY, DID YOUR MOTION CARRY THAT?

>> YES. IT DID SEVEN FEET. ALL RIGHT.

THE NEXT, BEFORE WE GO ON, I MEANT TO DO THIS 42 MINUTES AGO, DOES ANYONE NEED A BREAK? ARE WE ALL DOING GOOD? LET'S MOVE ON THEN. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[020 Conduct a public hearing to consider and act upon an ordinance by amending the development and use regulations of Planned Development District No. 24 (PD-24) as set forth in Section 1 Subsection B of Ordinance No. 2005-43. The property is located at 400 South U.S. Hwy 67 (Case No. Z06-2021-038).]

NUMBER 20, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATIONS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 24, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 67.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I'M WITHOUT A PRESENTATION FOR RIGHT NOW. THE REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, COULD YOU PULL UP THE APPLICATION FILE REAL QUICK. OR THE AGENDA IF YOU CAN.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2.04, THE OUTDOOR STORAGE DOES REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

IT IS AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 24. THIS PROPERTY IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE WALMART PROPERTY. PROPOSED REQUEST THAT THEY ARE WISHING TO AMEND IS RIGHT NOW, THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, NUMBER 24, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ANY OUTSIDE DISPLAY OR STORAGE OF MERCHANDISE OR ITEMS. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM FOR QUITE A WHILE. THERE HAS BEEN ISSUES WITH STORING SHIPPING CONTAINERS.

DUE TO HOLIDAY SALES OUT ON THE PROPERTY. WHEN WE SEND THEM A ZONING VIOLATION LETTER, THEY IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED TO STAFF AND CAME IN AND ASKED WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. I DO UNDERSTAND MANAGEMENT CHANGES. SO I DON'T EXPECT EVERY ONE OF THEM TO READ THE ORDINANCES.

THEY DID COME IN PROMPTLY, IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED STAFF AND STARTED GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO AMEND THE EXISTING PD TO COME INTO CONFORMANCE. WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING TO DO, REQUESTING TO ALLOW FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE TRAILERS OR SHIPPING CONTAINERS.

IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS ON THE SITE. IF YOU COULD GO TO GOOGLE MAPS, I CAN SHOW IT ON GOOGLE MAPS, THE SITE. WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TO DO IS THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT THE PD BE AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR SHIPPING CONTAINERS BE PERMITTED BETWEEN OCTOBER 1ST AND DECEMBER 31ST. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SHIPPING CONTAINERS THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED, MAXIMUM 20. ONLY ALLOWED IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS ON THE WALMART SITE. ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THIS IS AS RETAIL COMMERCE HAS CHANGED DRASTICALLY, NOT ONLY IN 2020, BUT WITH THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WITH ONLINE SALES, ET CETERA, THE NEED FOR THIS HAS SKY ROCKETED WHERE TO KEEP THIS EXPONENTIAL AMOUNT OF MERCHANDISE DURING THIS PEAK SEASON. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE GOOGLE IMAGERY, RIGHT NOW THEY DO HAVE SHIPPING CONTAINERS ALL THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.

EVEN RIGHT HERE. THROUGH THE ORDINANCE, WE ARE ONLY ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE SHIPPING CONTAINERS ALONG THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. AND IN THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE.

FIRST THEY WOULD FILL THOSE AREAS IN THE BACK, WHICH WOULD NOT ENCROACH INTO FIRE LANES.

THEY HAVE TO BE OUTSIDE THE FIRE LANES, STILL MEET THE PROVISIONS. ALL THE OVERFLOW WOULD FOLLOW UP ON THE SIDE. BETWEEN OCTOBER 1ST AND DECEMBER 31ST.

THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE IT IMMEDIATELY. WHEN WE DID TALK TO THEM ABOUT ZONING VIOLATION THAT THEY WENT THROUGH, ONE OF THE PROCESSES WE GO THROUGH AND THE PROPERTY RECEIVES A ZONING VIOLATION IS WE GO THROUGH OTHER OPTIONS. OUR FIRST OBLIGATION IS NOT TO

[02:45:02]

TRY TO SHUT THEM DOWN, WE TRY TO WORK WITH THEM. NO MATTER WHO THE APPLICANT IS OR WHOEVER THE MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY IS. IMMEDIATELY THEY ASKED WHAT CAN WE DO. THIS IS THEIR PEAK SEASON. WE GOT THEM TO REMOVE ALL OF THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS. THE VERY NEXT DAY, EVERYTHING WAS MOVED.

THEY STOPPED ALL FUTURE CONTAINERS COMING INTO THE SITE UNTIL THIS CASE WAS DONE.

SO THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT ARE OF CONCERN. ALSO WHEN WE DID VARIOUS SITES, SITE VISITS, TO THE PROPERTY, WE STARTED GOING THROUGH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE WE KNOW THIS WOULD BE ASKED. LOVE'S WAS A GREAT EXAMPLE, WHEN THEY CAME THROUGH.

THEY HAVE COME IN MULTIPLE TIMES TO TRY TO AMEND THEIR ORDINANCE, WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THEIR SIGNAGE REGULATION. THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE IN VIOLATION IS THE MINOR LANDSCAPING THROUGH THE YEARS. THINGS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT.

DISEASE OR DEAD PLANTS. THE SPLIT RAIL FENCES THAT ARE BROKEN ALONG HERE.

ALONG HERE. THAT WE'VE PUT IN THE STAFF REPORT AS A CONDITION, AS A REMINDER THOSE ARE ALSO ZONING VIOLATIONS IF THOSE ARE NOT REPAIRED.

IMMEDIATELY THEY DID CONTACT US AND THEY DID REACH OUT AND LET US KNOW THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING IN COMPLIANCE, THAT THEY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. SO THEY WILL BE IN THE PROCESS OF REPAIRING THE FENCES, REPLACING THE TREES AND BUSHES REMOVED. THERE WAS A STRUCTURE HERE PLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT THAT WE MENTIONED. THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS, WE MADE NOTE OF THAT. ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS YET, I APOLOGIZE. THEY HAVE TRYING TO BRING THEIR PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE.

STAFF DID SEND OUT NOTICES OF ALL PROPERTY IN 200 FEET. ZERO CAME BACK IN FAVOR.

ZERO CAME BACK IN OPPOSITION. WE LOOKED WHEN WE LOOKED FORWARD TO TRY TO SEE IF ANY SCREENING SHOULD BE REQUIRED. WE LOOKED AT THE SITE QUITE A BIT.

WHEN I DID MY SITE VISITS, ONE THING I WANTED TO SEE, CAN YOU SEE IT FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

YOU CAN'T SEE THESE SHIPPING CONTAINERS FROM THE RIGHT RIGHT-OF-WAY. THESE SHIPPING CONTAINERS ARE SEEN, BUT THE AMOUNT OF TREES EXCEED IN ANY OTHER AREA. YOU CAN'T SEE IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT. ESPECIALLY THE RETAINING WALL. EVEN IN THE RETAINING WALL, THEY HAVE LANDSCAPING IN THERE. WE DON'T FEEL THAT REQUIRING TEMPORARY SCREENING WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THIS PROPERTY OR TO THE CITY. THEM HAVING TO TEAR IT OUT EVERY DECEMBER 31ST. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CAN'T SEE IT ANYWHERE.

THESE AREAS YOU CAN'T SEE FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. WE FEEL IT'S NOT A CONCERN FOR THE CITY AT THIS TIME. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ONCE AGAIN.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> (INAUDIBLE) >> YES, I DO. IF ALL ZONING VIOLATIONS WERE RECTIFIED NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 15TH OF EACH YEAR WOULD THAT HELP ANY OR NOT?

>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. SO FAR THEY HAVE IMMEDIATELY DOING WHAT THEY CAN TO BRING IT IN TO COMPLIANCE. ONCE YOU'RE IN VIOLATION, YOU'RE IN VIOLATION.

MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS. >> THAT IS TRUE. WITH THE CITY GROWING LIKE IT IS. IF YOU HAD TEETH ENOUGH TO SAY YOU CAN'T PUT THE TRAILERS

THERE. >> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >> UNLESS YOU MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF ZONING BY THE 15TH OF SEPTEMBER WOULD THAT HELP OR WOULD THAT NOT HELP?

>> IT WOULD ALWAYS HELP. I REFER BACK TO LEGAL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD

BE. >> KEVIN >> WHAT HE IS SAYING CURRENTLY THERE'S VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY, LANDSCAPING BEEN REMOVED.

FENCES BROKEN, STRUCTURES NOT PERMITTED. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DO SHIPPING CONTAINERS EVERY YEAR, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE COMPLIANT BY SEPTEMBER 15TH.

[02:50:07]

>> (INAUDIBLE) >> IT EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 31ST. OR WHATEVER.

>> THAT WOULD BE RENEWING IT EVERY YEAR AND RESTART THE PROCESS.

>> THE REASON I LIKE SEPTEMBER 15TH IS THEY OUGHT TO KNOW.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IT SAYS APPROVED PROPOSED CHANGES, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL OTHER REGULATIONS IN THE PD ARE BEING FOLLOWED.

AND THE ISSUES ARE CORRECTED. IF YOU MAKE THE MOTION THAT WAY, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT

TAKES CARE OF IT. PERIOD. >> WOULD YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF IT WAS A YEARLY RENEWAL UNDER THE CONDITIONS BEING ASKED?

>> I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE WERE ENFORCING WHAT IS NOT BEING COMPLIED WITH RIGHT NOW. EITHER YOU GRANT IT OR YOU DON'T.

SUP IS OKAY. AND LET CODE ENFORCEMENT DEAL WITH THE OTHER VIOLATIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE INDEPENDENTLY OF WHETHER YOU GRANT THE SUP OR NOT.

NOT COMPLICATE THE TWO. THAT WOULD BE WHAT I PREFER. AND NOT GET INTO AN ISSUE OF HAVING TO RENEW IT EVERY YEAR AND TYING IT CONDITIONAL TO HAVING TO COMPLY AND DO SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW ANYWAY. IF THEY GOT TO COMPLY, THEY GOT TO COMPLY. WE HAVEN'T HAD THIS CONVERSATION THAT STAFF LEVEL PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. LEFT UP TO ME, AS CITY ATTORNEY, I MEAN, YOU'RE SAYING GIVING YOU PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE NEED YOU TO COMPLY WITH SOMETHING YOU KNOW, YOU'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, WHICH I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, THAT IS FINE. BUT TO DO IT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I THINK YOU'RE REVISITING THIS EVERY YEAR.

WHEN THE FACT IS, THEY NEED TO BE COMPLYING WITH THE LAW YEAR ROUND

>> I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE, IF THEY DID, WHY WASN'T IT HANDLED BEFORE THIS POINT?

>> THAT I CAN'T ANSWER. >> BECAUSE CODE IS BUSY ENOUGH THAT THEY USUALLY OPERATE OFF OF COMPLAINTS. MOST OF THE TIME. NOT ALL OF THE TIME.

>> I UNDERSTAND. AND YOU KNOW, THEN YOU GET TO THE QUESTION OF YOU KNOW, IS THE ORDINANCE, WHERE DO WE STAND WITH THE ORDINANCE, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THEM COMPLY. I MEAN, WHY PASS ORDINANCES, I THINK WE'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AT COUNCIL LEVEL IN THE PAST. THAT IS KIND OF A POLICY ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED. FROM JUST A PURE ORDINANCE STANDPOINT, I PREFER NOT TO MIX THE TWO. I MEAN, LET'S LET THOSE THINGS BE ENFORCED YOU KNOW, AS THEY NEED TO BE ENFORCED. EITHER THE LAND USE REGULATIONS AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH SCREENING, PAINTING, WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED, OPERATION OF BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, AND LET THE SUP STAND ON ITS OWN AND GO AHEAD AND GRANT IT YOU KNOW, TO ALLOW THEM TIME AND HANDLE THE OTHER CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES THROUGH THE NORMAL CODE PROCESS.

>> COUNSELOR, IF HISTORY IS ANY INDICATION OF FUTURE, WE'RE NOT DOING VERY WELL OVER THERE AS FAR AS ADHERING TO THE ORDINANCE. SO WOULD THIS NOT PUT MORE

TEETH IN THE ORDINANCE? >> WELL, I MEAN, IF IT'S GOING TO CREATE A CARROT STICK EFFECT, I SUPPOSE IT COULD. BUT IF IT'S JUST A MATTER OF YOU KNOW, THEY GET THE CARROT AND YOU KNOW, THEY KEEP GETTING THE CARROT AND THINGS KEEP FALLING OFF AFTER -- I MEAN, I

DON'T KNOW WHAT GOOD THAT DOES FROM A PROSECUTION STANDPOINT. >> WELL, IF THEY DON'T MEET THE

REQUIREMENTS, THEY DON'T GET TO BRING THE TRAILERS IN. >> SOMEONE WHO WORKS IN A BIG CORPORATION, WE DON'T, IF THERE IS AN ORDINANCE, WE DON'T FIGHT IT AND TRY TO ARGUE.

WE DON'T BRING A TEAM OF LAWYERS IN. THEY HAVE SOMEONE HERE THAT THEIR COMMUNITY RELATIONS SPEAKER, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE IT.

IF WE PUT THAT PROVISION IN THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO COMPLY AND GET EVERYTHING CORRECTED.

[02:55:03]

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO FIGHT YOU ABOUT ENFORCEMENT. >> IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DETERMINED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE OF THE DATE, THAT IS FINE.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I THINK FROM A PROSECUTION STANDPOINT, I MEAN, IF THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE, THEY NEED TO BE COMPLYING ALL YEAR LONG.

>> RIGHT. >> AND NOT COMPLY DURING THE CHRISTMAS YOU KNOW, DURING HOLIDAY SHOPPING SEASON AND ONCE THOSE TRAILERS ARE GONE, EVERYTHING GOES TO HECK.

UNTIL THE NEXT HOLIDAY SEASON. >> I AGREE WITH YOU, COUNSELOR. I THINK WE'RE DEALING WITH TWO

SEPARATE ISSUES HERE AND SHOULD BE HANDLED TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. >> HERE IS THE ONLY MAIN PROBLEM THAT I HAVE, I DON'T PERSONALLY HAVE A PROBLEM AT ALL WITH THEM HAVING, I'M ASSUMING THESE ARE GOING TO BE CONTAINERS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DROP ON THE GROUND?

>> YES, SIR >> BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU MENTIONED WITH THE WAY THAT IT DROPS OFF THERE. IT'S BASICALLY HIDDEN. BUT THE PROBLEM I'M HAVING IS COUNCIL HAS TAKEN A VERY RIGID SEVERELY RIGID STANCE ON THESE TYPE OF BUILDINGS OR THESE -- IT'S JUST IT AIN'T HAPPENING HERE. I REMEMBER LOWE'S, THEY HAD I

THINK ONE OR TWO SHIPPING CONTAINERS. >> TWO.

THOSE ARE PERMANENT. >> THEY HAD THEM PAINTED EXACTLY LIKE THE BUILDING.

AND EVEN HAD A WHITE STRIPE ON THEM LIKE THE REVEAL ON THE BUILDING.

THEY WERE STORING TIRES INSIDE OF THEM, WHAT A WONDERFUL IDEA TO KEEP MOSQUITOS DOWN.

WHAT DID WE SAY? GOT TO GET THEM OUT OF THERE. I CAN THINK OF OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE FOLKS, I'M THINKING BEHIND THE STYROFOAM PLANT. ONE OF THE SIDE ROADS, WE SAID NO NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I'M HAVING TROUBLE ON THAT ASPECT IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY EVERYBODY ELSE IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT WALMART, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW IT.

I GET WHY WALMART NEEDS TO DO IT. I GET THAT IT'S HIDDEN, BUT WE NEED TO ALLOW BETTER PROVISIONS FOR THESE OTHER FOLKS, WHERE I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

>> THOSE OTHER INSTANCES, THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS TEMPORARY VERSUS PERMANENT.

THIS IS LISTED AS A TEMPORARY ONE BETWEEN OCTOBER 1ST AND DECEMBER 31ST AND THEN THEY HAVE TO REMOVE IT FROM THEIR SITE COMPLETELY. WE CAN START LOOKING INTO THAT.

PER YOUR DIRECTION. >> I WANT TO STRESS THOSE ARE COUNCIL DECISIONS.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING Y'ALL HAVE DONE. >> WE CAN START LOOKING INTO

IT. >> SIR? >> WE CAN START LOOKING INTO

IT. >> ALL RIGHT. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE

A PRESENTATION? >> MY NAME IS GREG HARDEN I'M THE STORE MANAGER.

I'VE BEEN HERE ABOUT FOUR YEARS COME FEBRUARY. PROBABLY ONE OF THE BEST COMMUNITIES I'VE BEEN A PART OF. I'VE RAN STORES IN NORTH DALLAS. HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND OPEN 108TH ACADEMY HERE.

200 STORES. AND THEN ULTIMATELY JUST CONTINUE TO ROLL WITH THE COMMUNITY, PROVIDE ESSENTIAL NEEDS AND THINGS LIKE CHRISTMAS TO THE COMMUNITY.

I GOT HERE FOUR YEARS AGO. GROWING TOWN IS WHAT I THOUGHT. NOW THAT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT.

BUT BY ALL MEANS, I'LL PUT THAT OUT THERE. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY, ONE, STANDING IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL AND BOARD, TO KIND OF TALK THROUGH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET ACCOMPLISHED DOWN THERE. I DON'T EXCUSE THE LACK OF BETTER UPKEEP OF SOME OF THE AREAS ON THE PREMISES, BUT THERE IS A FEW THINGS WE'VE DONE ALREADY TO CORRECT THOSE. FIRST THING IS THE PROPERTY LINE WAS ADJUSTED IMMEDIATELY.

ONE THING I GO THROUGH TO FIX SOME THINGS, SPLIT RAIL FENCES ET CETERA.

I DON'T HAVE A LASER. I THINK WE TALKED THROUGH IT A LITTLE BIT.

ONCE WE GOT THE PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTED, I'M ABLE TO PAY THE CONTRACTORS AND LANDSCAPERS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THESE SPLIT RAILS HERE. I THINK THERE IS A LITTLE MORE GOING ALONG THE 67 LINE HERE. THOSE THINGS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ADJUSTED.

SOME OF THAT WASN'T BUILT INTO THE PROPERTY LINE. I GET BACK, HEY, Y'ALL NOT GOING TO PAY ME. THROUGH OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION, THINGS WE GOT TO

[03:00:01]

GET BETTER AT AND COMMUNICATING WITH TRENT AND YOU KNOW, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CITY, WE WERE ABLE TO GET THAT FIXED REALLY REALLY QUICK. SOME OF THOSE THINGS HAD ALREADY BEEN FIXED. AS IT RELATES TO THE AWNING HERE, ALLUDED TO IT, DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS. KIND OF AN AREA WHERE I FIRST GOT TO THE STORE, I DIDN'T READ THE ORDINANCE, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. GROWING TOWN.

TRIED TO JUMP IN AND HELP WHEREVER I COULD. WHEN I FIRST GOT TO THE STORE, THE ASSOCIATE'S BREAK AREA WAS THE DRIVE-THROUGH PHARMACY. THE OTHER SPOT IS IN THE FRONT OF THIS BUILDING BY THE UNITED STATES TEXAS FLAG. THE LAST THING I WANTED TO GIVE WAS THE PRESENTATION TO THE COMMUNITY THAT IS SO BEAUTIFUL, DOES A GREAT JOB TAKING CARE OF THE STORES. MILLION MORE MANAGERS. BECAUSE THEY LET ME KNOW EVERYTHING. I DROPPED OFF GROCERIES WAY OUT THERE TO TAKE CARE OF A CUSTOMER OUT THERE. I DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THE ASSOCIATES SMOKING.

THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO SEE THE SOMEBODY SMOKING CIGARETTES.

I GOT THE AWNING AWAY FROM THAT AREA OF THE BUILDING OUT HERE. PUT IT OUT HERE WITH TLE IS.

I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WAS WRONG. I'LL MOVE IT. WE'LL DOWNGRADE IT A LITTLE BIT OR MOVE IT TO A LOCATION WHERE IT'S NOT SO VISUAL AND I HATE TO SAY THIS WORD, KIND OF LOOKS NASTY. SMOKING IN FRONT OF THE PHARMACY, ET CETERA.

BUT THAT WILL BE CORRECTED AS WELL. TRAILERS, I CAN TELL YOU, 15TH OF DECEMBER, EVERY TRAILER ON THAT PARKING LOT IS EMPTY. EXCEPT FOR ONE.

THE REASON FOR THAT, THE LONGER I HAVE THEM, THE MORE I GOT TO PAY.

THE EXPENSE ISN'T IN MY BUDGET. ULTIMATELY, WITHOUT HAVING THE TRAILERS, IN A GROWING TOWN LIKE THIS, WE CAN'T PROVIDE WHAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE TO THE COMMUNITY.

ESPECIALLY FROM AN E-COMMERCE STANDPOINT. A LOT OF CUSTOMERS DON'T WANT TO COME IN TO THE STORES ANY MORE. GIVE THEM THE TIME TO PICK IT UP. THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW.

SO THE REASON WE HAVE TO HAVE THE TRAILERS TO SOME DEGREE, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE TIME FRAME FROM OCTOBER 1ST TO DECEMBER 31ST, IS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF INVENTORY WE HAVE TO CARRY NOW TO TAKE CARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THAT IS KIND OF WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. BUT AS IT RELATES TO THE UPKEEP, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE WILL GET ON RIGHT NOW. CORRECTED VERY VERY QUICKLY. ALL OF THE TRAILERS ARE KEYED IN TO BE PICKED UP EXCEPT FOR ONE. SOME HAVE STARTED TO BE PICKED UP. IF YOU DROVE OUT THERE, THERE IS GOING TO BE A YELLOW FENCE AREA RIGHT HERE. A LOT OF THE THINGS YOU'RE SEEING, TRENT SAW IT, THERE IS A FEW OPEN TOPS BEHIND THE BUILDING. WE'RE REMODELLING AND ADDING THE WOMEN'S RESTROOM, ONLY FOR MOTHERS. SO THE TRAILER, SOME OF THAT STUFF IS FIXTURES, COMING IN TO CONTINUE TO RENOVATE THE STORE. KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE DID WITH THE VISION CENTER. THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS TO MAKE IT RELEVANT IN THE COMMUNITY.

YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY JUST PROVIDE A SEEMLESS SHOPPING EXPERIENCE AND A PLACE WHERE IT LOOKS DELIGHTFUL. WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO RENOVATE, CONTINUE TO GROW IT.

TO DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE TRAILERS CERTAIN TIMES OF THE YEAR.

THE STORE GETS REALLY REALLY HEAVY FROM INVENTORY LEVEL, WHEN YOU REACH THAT OCTOBER POINT. THIS YEAR WAS A DIFFERENT KIND OF YEAR.

UNPRECEDENTED ON ALL LEVELS, HOW WE HAVE TO CONDUCT OURSELVES.

MOVING INTO JANUARY NEXT YEAR, ANTICIPATING CHANGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT HAPPENING.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ULTIMATELY, WE JUST APPRECIATE BEING A PART OF THE CITY AND GET A CHANCE TO SERVE HERE IN THE COMMUNITY.

GREAT COMMUNITY. A LOT OF POTENTIAL. WE JUST ENJOY BEING A PART OF IT. THE ISSUES LEADING UP TO SEPTEMBER 15TH, I THINK IS THE DATE THAT I HEARD. THOSE WILL BE NON-NEGOTIABLE. THE TRAILERS ARE EMPTY AHEAD OF TIME. PICK-UP STANDPOINT, WE'RE AT THE MERCY OF THE COMPANY PICKING THEM UP. THEY GOT DRIVERS COMING UP FROM HOUSTON TO MOVE TRAILERS.

RIGHT NOW THEY'RE SITTING THERE EMPTY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE TRAILER.

THAT WILL BE IN THE BUILDING TOMORROW. AT THAT POINT THEY WILL BE SITTING ON THE PARKING LOT, BUT THEY'RE NOT PERMANENT BY ANY MEANS.

THE AREA WHERE THEY ARE, ANOTHER REASON WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP THEM OUT THERE TOO LONG, THIS IS OUR E COMMERCE GROCERY PICK-UP AREA. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS USE THAT SERVICE. YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF TRAILERS OUT THERE, TAKING UP PARKING SPOTS, CUSTOMERS THAT NEED TO PARK TOO. WE GOT TO COME UP WITH A BETTER SOLUTION LEADING INTO NEXT YEAR EXACTLY WHERE WE PLACE THEM. WE MAY EXPAND.

BUT I JUST WANTED Y'ALL TO UNDERSTAND THE THOUGHT PROCESS AS IT RELATES TO THE TRAILERS.

[03:05:04]

THEY'RE EMPTY. THEY WILL BE GONE WELL BEFORE DECEMBER 31ST, EVERY YEAR.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> YES. I HAVE A COUPLE

>> YES, SIR. >> I KNOW THAT THIS IS A QUALITY STORE.

I KNOW THAT YOU DO TRAINING HERE FOR OTHER STORES. I LIKE HAVING THE BUILDING AND THE BUILDING OCCUPIED. ON SOUTH SIDE OF DALLAS, WALMART OCCUPIED THE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF I-20. IT WAS SHUT DOWN. THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS BUILT BETWEEN WHITLAND AND I-20, SHUT DOWN. THERE IS ONE NOW OUT THERE.

THERE WAS ALSO A WALMART SHUT DOWN IN DUNCANVILLE. I DON'T WANT A BIG BUILDING LIKE THAT VACANT IN MY COMMUNITY. AND I KNOW WE HAVE A PROVISION THAT IF YOU LEAVE IT, YOU WILL HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW STRONG THAT IS. SO MY CONCERN IS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS TOP SHELF.

AS BEST WE CAN GET IT THERE. >> UNDERSTOOD. >> SO THAT IS MY THOUGHT.

AND YOU WOULD HAVE, IF THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL APPROVE THIS, BY

SEPTEMBER 15TH, WE WOULD EXPECT EVERYTHING TO BE UP TO SNUFF. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT? >> NOT AT ALL.

ESPECIALLY WITH THE PROPERTY LINES BEING ADJUSTED. SOME OF THESE THINGS WE'VE DEFINITELY GOTTEN RIGHT ON ALREADY. REGIONAL FACILITY MAINTENANCE IN CONTACT WITH THE CITY ALREADY. LANDSCAPING IS IN CONTACT WITH THE CITY ALREADY. TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING THE SAME MESSAGE.

I'VE INVOLVED THEM AS WELL TO MAINTAIN THE UPKEEP IN THE STORE.

THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR US AT ALL. WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT.

I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT. ULTIMATELY, WE WANT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN HERE IN THE COMMUNITY AND CONTINUE TO SERVE IN THE COMMUNITY. WHAT WE NEED TO DO, WE'LL TAKE

CARE OF. >> WE LIKE YOU BEING HERE, SIR. >> YES, SIR.

THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? >> WE HAVE THE ONLY OTHER PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS IS LORI OUT OF BENTONVILLE ARKANSAS. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS,

DISCUSSIONS, MOTIONS? >> ALL RIGHT. >> I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE TEMPORARY, I KNOW WE APPROVED SOMETHING SIMILAR. WE DIDN'T APPROVE LIKE NECESSARILY TRAILERS FOR KROGER, THEY DID HAVE OUTDOOR FOR SEASONAL ACTIVITY FOR TENANTS AND SO FORTH. I THINK THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE COMPROMISE HERE.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS BY

STAFF, SET BY STAFF. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HILL. CALL THE VOTE.

ROLL COMMISSIONER HILL. CALL THE VOTE.

ROLL OMMISSIONER HILL. CALL THE VOTE. ROLL HHILL.

CALL THE VOTE. ROLL HILL. CALL THE VOTE.

ROLL CALL. THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY AND IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[021 Conduct a public hearing to consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the development and use of 40.761± acres out of the James Coldiron Survey, Abstract No. 224, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas, described in Exhibit "A" hereto by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District to Planned Development District No. 138 (PD-138) for residential uses. The property is generally located to the south of West Highland Road, between North Mockingbird Lane and Springer Road (Case No. Z07-2021-028).]

ITEM NUMBER 21, WHICH IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE USE OF 40 ACRES SOUTHWEST OF HIGHLAND ROAD.

CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURE TO PLANNED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER

138. >> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS REZONE TO ALLOW 33 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURE, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF FOUR ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO DO

[03:10:01]

A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WILL BE ONE ACRE PLUS.

EXPECTED LOT SIZE TO BE A MINI MINIMUM.

THE SITE PLAN ALSO CONTAINS ROADS LEADING TO THE WEST. WE HAVE IT UP HERE ON THE SCREEN I THINK. THE APPLICANT WILL INSTALL FENCING ALONG WEST HIGHLAND LANE. GOING TO BE A MASONRY WALL OR A COMMERCIAL GRADE OR METAL FENCE THAT IS GOING TO HAVE SIX-FOOT TALL VEGETATIVE SCREEN AS WELL. THERE IS ONE CORRECTION THAT WE DO NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT IS IN YOUR ORDINANCE AND STAFF REPORT.

IT DOES TALK ABOUT BEING A 20-FOOT WIDE COMMON LOT AREA WHERE THE FENCE IS GOING TO BE INSTALLED. THAT IS ACTUALLY A 15-FOOT WIDE.

15-FOOT WIDE IS THE BASE MINIMUM. SO IT'S ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTABLE.

20-FOOT, WE SOMETIMES SEE THAT WITH THESE ONE ACRE DEVELOPMENTS.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE APPLICANT IS WANTING TO DO A 15-FOOT WIDE COMMON LOT, ALONG WEST HIGHLAND ROAD. THIS RIGHT HERE, THE SLIDE THAT I HAVE UP HERE RIGHT NOW DOES SHOW THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS ZONED AGRICULTURE. TREELINE SHALL BE PRESERVED.

YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE IN THEIR SITE PLAN. ON THE WEST SIDE, EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THAT SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TYPICAL AMENITIES THAT WE FIND WITHIN USABLE OPEN SPACE THAT THAT NOT BE REQUIRED. THE PROPERTY IS INSIDE THE 2000 FOOT REQUIREMENT FOR CONNECTING TO A SEWER LINE, FOR A SEPTIC WAIVER, THE APPLICANT DOES NEED TO GET A SEPTIC WAIVER.

IF YOU LOOK TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, THEY'RE ABOUT 1700 FEET AWAY FROM AN EXISTING SEWER LINE, PROVIDING SEWER SERVICE TO THESE LARGER TRACTS TYPE SIZE LOTS IS NOT VERY TYPICAL. LIKELY COST PROHIBITIVE AND WOULD CONFLICT WITH OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT A SEPTIC WAIVER IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WERE MAILED. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE.

I'LL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> (INAUDIBLE) >> YES, SIR.

>> IT'S ONLY WAIVING THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE APPLICANT IS ONLY PROPOSING OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS THAT 15-FOOT WIDE COMMON LOT.

ONLY COMMON AREA, I GUESS IS A BETTER TERM TO USE. BUT THAT COMMON AREA IS REALLY JUST TO CREATE BUFFER BETWEEN THE ACTUAL WALL OR THE SCREENING WALL THAT THEY'RE

GOING TO PUT UP AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> SO I'M ASSUMING WE'VE GOT A

BRICK WALL. >> IT'S GOING TO BE EITHER/OR. TYPICAL ALSO.

OUR REQUIREMENTS STATE THAT YOU CAN EITHER DO A COMMERCIAL GRADE ROD IRON FENCE, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SIX FOOT TALL VEGETATIVE SCREEN IN FRONT OF THAT INSTALLED.

OR A MASONRY WALL, WITH LANDSCAPING. IT GIVES THEM THE OPTION.

WHEN YOU'RE ADJACENT TO A COLLECTOR ROAD. THAT IS A COLLECTOR, A MAJOR

COLLECTOR ON OUR THOROUGH FARE. >> I GUESS THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME ON A NEW START-UP.

[03:15:04]

BUT ON A COMMUNITY SUCH AS OURS THAT'S DEVELOPED OUT TO SO MANY ONE TO FIVE ACRE RESIDENTS, YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF THAT ON HIGHLAND HERE, TO ME IT'S ODD WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN WHAT FEELS LIKE HERE IN THE COUNTRY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU INTERSECT A WALL RUNNING DOWN THE ROAD. I PREFER, AS THE CITY HAS STARTED TO MOVE MORE IN A DIRECTION ESPECIALLY ON THE SOUTHSIDE OF TOWN THAT WE HAVE MORE OF A LANDSCAPING BARRIER.

IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE A SCREENING BARRIER, THOSE RESIDENTS DON'T LOOK AS NICE AS THE DAY THEY WERE PUT UP IN 20 YEARS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE REACHED THIS BALANCE. I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT IT'S NICER TO HAVE A BETTER. I WOULD RATHER SEE THE IRON WITH SOME SHRUBBERY THERE.

SOME SHRUBBERY THERE THAT PROVIDES FOR SOME VEGETATION BARRIER.

AND THEN TO WHERE WE HAVE ENOUGH SETBACK TO SOME OF THE BERMS WITH VEGETATION.

I GUESS I'M SPEAKING TO STAFF HERE. BUT Y'ALL HAVE YOUR CONFINEMENTS FOR THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU OPERATE WITHIN. SO THAT IS MY TEN CENTS ON THESE MORE REMOTE SUBDIVISIONS. AS FAR AS THE APPLICATION, THESE LOOK TO BE ROUGHLY ONE

ACRE LOT. >> YES, SIR. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> SO THE MAJORITY OF WHAT IS SURROUNDING THEM, ESPECIALLY RUNNING THIS, BACK UP TO THEM ALONG THE TRAIL. THOSE ARE GOING TO BE ONE ACRE, OR ONE TO ONE AND A HALF.

BECAUSE OF THEIR WIDTH. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE AS SEVERE OVERLAP ON THOSE LARGER LOTS. I KNOW WE'VE GOTTEN INTO ISSUES BEFORE WITH NEIGHBORS.

THEY DON'T LIKE THE IDEA IF THE BACK OF THEIR LOT COVERS TWO OR THREE LOTS.

I'M ASSUMING THESE ARE LIKE ONE TO ONE AND A HALF LOT COVERAGE. >> IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT I HAVE

UP HERE. >> ONE AND A HALF, ISN'T IT? >> LET'S SAY FOR INSTANCE, LOT

EIGHT AND NINE, YOU'VE GOT TWO LOTS. >> SOME YES, SOME NO.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU. >> I DO WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING.

WE DID RECEIVE, I DID RECEIVE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION. AND THOSE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT WE DID RECEIVE WERE FROM FOLKS THAT ARE ACTUALLY IN THE COUNTY.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION ON THAT AS WELL. WHEN I STATED THAT WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY LETTERS OF OPPOSITION OR IN SUPPORT, THAT WAS ONLY WITHIN, LET ME GO BACK HERE. WHEN WE DO OUR BUFFERING, OUR BUFFERING ONLY ACCOUNTS FOR THE AREAS THAT FALL WITHIN OUR CITY. NOT OUTSIDE OF OUR CITY.

SO WE DID RECEIVE SOME LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FROM SOME FOLKS. BUT THEY WERE ALL IN THE

COUNTY. NOTHING FROM WITHIN THE CITY. >> WE HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKER SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TONIGHT. WE'LL HAVE TO ASK THAT QUESTION WHEN THEY COME UP.

>> ABSOLUTELY. YES, SIR. >> ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO PRESENT ON THIS TOPIC? >> MY NAME IS CHRIS OLIVER,

APPLICANT. I'M A REAL ESTATE BROKER. >> WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS?

>> 3800 FM 813. THIS PROPERTY, I KNOW IT ABUTTS UP TO THE COUNTY, BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS BASICALLY, I WORK WITH THE HOME BUILDER WHO BUILT ALL OF THE HOMES IN MOCKING BIRD SPRINGS, WHICH IS ON THE CORNER OF WEST HIGHLAND AND MOCKINGBIRD.

THEY CAN SIT A PRIVACY FENCE TWO FEET INSIDE THAT ROD IRON. THEY DON'T COME BACK AND PUT A FENCE INSIDE A ROD IRON FENCE. TO ME IT LOOKS MORE TACKY. BUT WE'RE OPEN TO HEAR SUGGESTIONS ON ANYTHING THAT MAY CHANGE. I KNOW THIS IS ZONED AEG, SO IT COULD TAKE, THREE ACRE LOTS. IT JUST CAN'T TAKE ONE ACRE LOTS, BASICALLY THE WAY IT'S ZONED RIGHT NOW. THE REASON FOR US TRYING TO AMEND THE PD OR CHANGE IT TO

[03:20:01]

THE PD. THE WHOLE CORNER RIGHT THERE, 10 OR 12 HOMEOWNERS, THEY WANT

THE PRIVACY AT THE END OF THE DAY. >> I THINK THE OTHER WAY AROUND THAT FOR THAT I'VE BEEN AWARE OF. THERE IS ANOTHER WAY TO DEVELOP AND IT DOES COST A LITTLE BIT OF LAND. THE WAY TO DEVELOP IS YOU HAVE HOUSES THAT FACE THE STREET ON THE FRONT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND YOU CAN EVEN HAVE A SLIP STREET. DOVE CREEK IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THAT.

STILL PROVIDING FOR THE RURAL ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH FOLKS HAVE BEEN DRAWN TO IN OUR COMMUNITY WITHOUT ERECTING WALLS OUT IN THE COUNTRY. I DON'T HAVE AS BIG ISSUE WITH WALLS UP ON 14TH STREET, THE HIGHWAY OR HIGHER DENSED AREAS AROUND THE SCHOOLS.

BUT WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THESE MORE REMOTE AREAS, ESPECIALLY MOCKING BIRD LANE, WEST HIGHLAND IS A GREAT EXAMPLE, WHERE YOU'VE GOT HOME AFTER HOME, ONE TO THREE ACRE LOTS, THE LAST THING THEY WANT TO LOOK AT, THE BRICK WALLS JUST FEELS CITY TO THEM WHEN THEY LOOK OUT THEIR FRONT DOOR. BUT THANK YOU. I DO AGREE FROM THE APPLICATION

STANDPOINT, IT MAKES MORE SENSE. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE SOME FOLKS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

JOHN CLINTON WALLING. THANK YOU, SIR. COME ON UP.

>> I'M JOHN WALLING, 6242 CURTIS COURT. WE'RE DOWN HERE ON CURTIS COURT. RIGHT THERE. CURTIS COURT THIS WAY.

LOT NUMBER 4. RIGHT THERE. SO YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL FOR OBVIOUSLY WE'RE A GROWING TOWN, WE UNDERSTAND THAT. WE'RE NOT HERE FOR ANY OPPOSITION. WE HAVE CONCERNS BASED ON THE DRAWINGS AND EVERYTHING.

LOOKING AT THE DRAINAGE MAP THAT WE SAW, AND CHRIS, IF YOU CAN JUST ADDRESS THIS, WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM. SPRINGER ROAD IS GOING TO EXTEND ALL THE WAY DOWN. LOOKS LIKE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY.

AND AM NO DRAINAGE MAP READING EXPERT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE IS ANY DRAINAGE OFF-SETS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO

HAVE A RIVER COMING DOWN IN THE BACKYARDS. >> I DON'T THINK THEY ATTACHED,

WE SUBMITTED A DRAINAGE PLAN. >> THEY E-MAILED ME THE DRAINAGE PLAN.

YEAH. >> (INAUDIBLE) >> CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF

THE COMMENTS ARE SAID INTO THE MIC SO IT'S ON RECORD. >> YEAH.

>> IT MIGHT BE BEST FOR THE QUESTIONS (INAUDIBLE) >> NO PROBLEM.

>> OKAY. >> WE SAW THAT THERE WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO OFFSET IT THAT WAY. SOMEBODY WHO ABOVE MY EXPERTISE IN READING THOSE HAS TOLD ME THAT MAY NOT BE ENOUGH, JUST HAVING THAT ONE THING THERE MAY NOT BE ENOUGH TO OFFSET THE WATER. IN A MAJOR RAIN EVENT.

WE'RE FLAT BACK IN THE BACK LOTS BACK HERE. WE GET BAD FLOODING IN OUR FIELDS ANY WAY. I DO LIKE WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE TREE LINES.

WE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE TREE LINES BEING PRESERVED. PRETTY CLARIFIED ON THAT.

I THINK THAT IS REALLY ALL MY CONCERNS. JUST ABOUT THE WATER FLOW AND THE TREELINE PRESERVATIONS. SO BE GLAD TO LET ANYBODY ELSE TALK THAT NEEDS TO.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU MR. WALLING. THE NEXT PERSON TO SPEAK IS CARMEN SMITH. I'M AT 6230 WEST HIGHLAND ROAD, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTHWEST, NORTHEAST SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY, THE WEST SIDE OF MY PROPERTY IS ABOUT 500 FEET ADJACENT. I LIKE WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE HOUSES AT THE FRONT FACING THE

[03:25:05]

ROAD. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MASONRY WALL AND THEN HOMES.

I DON'T LIKE THAT HODGE PODGE LOOK. EXTREMELY CONCERNED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS A CREEK. AND THAT CREEK DURING HEAVY RAIN IS AT CAPACITY. SO IF WE DO NOT ALLOW FOR THE PROPER DRAINAGE WHEN WE DO ELEVATION, I'M A TRADE THAT WILL BE FLOODING MY PROPERTY. THAT PRETTY MUCH ADDRESSES MY CONCERNS. BIG CONCERN ABOUT THE CREEK. AND IF WE CAN GET A SURVEY ON HOW THE ELEVATION WILL AFFECT IT. AND IF IT WILL BE ABLE TO HOLD WHEN THIS IS COMPLETED. ANOTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS, THE PERMANENT TREELINE, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT FROM THE TREELINE, BUT LIKE TO SEE IT CLEANED OUT.

>> THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. THE NEXT PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IS DAVID BARNES.

MR. BARNES. >> WANT TO THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE'S TIME.

6251 CURTIS COURT. 40 YEARS IN DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING AND CIVIL STUFF PRETTY WELL WHERE I AM CUTTING MY TEETH. THE IDEA WITH THE LANDSCAPING IS THE BEST THING I HEARD. THE WALLS LOOK TERRIBLE OUT THERE.

I'M ALL FOR PROGRESS. HERE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEVELOPER AND THE CIVIL ENGINEER HAS THE RIGHT IDEA. BUT WITHOUT ANY HISTORICAL DATA THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. IF WE INTRODUCE ANYMORE WATER, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BIG PROBLEM. THE LAST STREET, WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT HERE, HEAVY STREET THAT RUNS THROUGH HERE. INTO THAT SUBDIVISION THAT THEY JUST BUILT RIGHT IN THERE. THIS CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT HERE, WHEN IT RAINS, THEY DIDN'T DO A GOOD JOB WHEN THEY DESIGNED THIS MESS. AND THIS OVER HERE GETS COMPLETELY FULL. THEY JUST PUT A SUBDIVISION OVER HERE ABOUT A YEAR AGO.

IT BACKS UP WATER 30 ACRES. IF WE HAVE ANY KIND OF SIGNIFICANT RAIN EVENT AT ALL, IT BACKS UP ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROAD. I KNOW THIS IS A MIX OF COUNTY AND CITY. I JUST WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

I WANT THEM TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TOO. IT APPEARS YOU HAVE (INAUDIBLE) I DIDN'T SEE ANY DETAILS ON THAT. I SAW ONE TYPICAL DETAIL OF A STREET. THE DITCHES ARE SO SHALLOW THAT IF WE'RE TRYING TO TURN WATER -- GO BACK TO THE OTHER. IF WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE THE WATER RIGHT HERE, HERE AND HERE, THOSE DITCHES ARE NOT THIS DIP. NO CURB AND GUTTERS.

IF WE TRY TO TURN IT THERE, IF WE GET A TWO INCH RAIN, IT'S GOING TO OVERWHELM THIS STREET.

IT'S GOING TO COME RIGHT INTO MY PROPERTY. AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WATER. I HAVE A NATURAL DRAIN DOWN ABOUT 30 FEET INSIDE THE FENCE.

AND I WAS ABOUT TO PUT A POND IN HERE. BUT WITH THE COVER THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE INTRODUCING UP HERE WITH ALL OF THE SEPTICS, THAT IS ALL OF THE SURFACE WATER, RAINS, RUNS DOWN, I WOULD BE MAKING A CESS POOL IF I BUILT A POND.

I'M ALL FOR PROGRESS. BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET FLOODED DOWN HERE.

AND THAT WILL GET OVERWHELMED THERE. UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING I'M NOT SEEING. IF THESE BOX CULVERTS HAVE A STORM DRAIN COMING DOWN.

THERE'S NOT A STORM DRAIN TYPE FIGURE THERE, IS THERE? >> YOU CAN'T DIRECT QUESTIONS.

YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTION AND THEY CAN ADDRESS IT IN OPPOSITION.

>> AT ANY RATE, WITH THE HISTORICAL DATA THAT WE ALL HAVE, WE CAN PROBABLY GET TOGETHER. WE JUST WANT IT TO BE RIGHT. MY OLD FENCE RIGHT HERE, IN THE TREELINE, IT'S THE TREELINE. I JUST DON'T WANT MY FENCES ANY WORSE THAN THEY ALREADY ARE.

[03:30:02]

I DON'T WANT THE TREES TO GO AWAY. >> YOUR CONCERN WOULD BE MAKING

SURE RETENTION FOR RUNOFF WATER. >> AND RETENTION IS VERY EXPENSIVE. I BUILT IN AUSTIN. WE BUILT IN SAN DIEGO, EVERYWHERE. EVEN IN DALLAS. RETENTION IS EXPENSIVE.

THIS IS NOT A BIG SUBDIVISION. I DON'T WANT TO BURDEN THE DEVELOPER EITHER.

BUT IF WE CAN BE SURE. THAT IS A PRETTY GOOD FALL FROM RIGHT HERE TO HERE.

IF WE GET A BIG RAIN EVENT, IT MAY FLOOD MY HOUSE. >> LET ME GET HIM TO ADDRESS

THAT THEN. >> JUST WE HAVE CONCERNS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE CARE OF

BEFORE WE APPROVE THE PRESENT DRAINAGE PLAN. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU GUYS. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. ANY -- LET ME GET THE APPLICANT BACK UP HERE AND LET ME ASK ABOUT THAT. SIR, HAVE YOU LOOKED ABOUT WHAT YOUR KIND OF RETENTION, DETENTION, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH RUNOFF WATER ON THE

PROPERTY? >> MCDEAL IS AN ENGINEER. I THINK THAT THE PD, WE REALLY HADN'T GOT TOO FAR INTO THE DRAINAGE. JUST PRELIMINARY.

SO I KNOW THAT THE PUNCH THROUGH STREET IN THE MIDDLE WAS ORIGINALLY AT THE BOTTOM.

SO THEN IN THE NOTES WITH THE MEETING, THEY SAID FLIP IT, MAKE THE PUNCH-THROUGH IN THE MIDDLE AND THEN MAKE THE CUL-DE-SAC AT THE BOTTOM. NATURAL DRAINAGE, THAT COMES BACK DOWN. THAT IS WHAT MOCKINGBIRD DOES THE SAME THING.

NATIONAL DRAINAGE. SO I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE SIZE OF THE CULVERTS OR WHAT WAS ENGINEERED. I KNOW IT'S STILL ON THE DRAWING TABLE.

WE CAN DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE THERE. I THINK WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THE PD AND THEN I THINK WE HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE

DRAINAGE AND ALL OF THAT TOO LATER ON. >> SO AT THAT POINT WE MAY HAVE

TO MAKE CHANGES. >> SURE. YEAH.

I KNOW HE TOOK SOME TIME CALCULATING IT. THE ENGINEER DID.

OBVIOUSLY, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO GET WITH THE HOMEOWNERS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, ONCE THE OWNER BUILDS THE HOUSES THERE, THAT IS THE LAST THING WE WANT IS THE NEW HOMEOWNERS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH HIM. OR VICE VERSA.

>> YEAH. WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO DEAL WITH THAT.

WE'LL DO WHAT IS RIGHT TO TAKE CARE OF IT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> ALL RIGHT. >> YEAH. AS FAR AS MASONRY, I DON'T WANT THE MASONRY EITHER. I'M JUST SAYING THE ROD IRON, IN SELLING THE HOUSES ON WEST HIGHLAND AND MOCKING BIRD. THAT HOMEOWNER IS SETTING THE CEDAR FENCE IN TWO FEET INSIDE.

AND EVERY ONE OF THEM LOOK DIFFERENT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT IS THE REASON WHY MASONRY, HEY, EVERYTHING LOOKS THE SAME. >> THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE FIXED, LOOKING AT YOUR SITE PLAN, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT APPROACH.

YOU DO HAVE LOTS THAT ARE FACING HIGHLAND. BUT YOUR HOUSES ROTATE.

AND SO THE FRONTS OF THE HOUSES FACE HIGHLAND. AND THEN YOU CAN EITHER HAVE A REAR ENTRY OR YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A SLIP STREET ON HIGHLAND TO CREATE THAT FRONT FACING, WHICH CREATES THE SAME FRONT FACING THAT ALL OF THOSE OTHER FOLKS OWN.

SO IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT APPROACH. BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE ONE SIDE LOT, WHICH THAT IS NOT A BIG ISSUE BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

DIFFERENT APPROACH THAT PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBDUED RURAL SETTING THAN BRICK FENCES IN THE MIDDLE. BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING ON GOOGLE.

THIS PART OF MIDLOTHIAN IS FULL OF LOOKS LIKE TWO TO FIVE, TEN ACRE TRACTS EVERYWHERE.

I MEAN, IT'S LITTERED WITH THEM. AND SO IT'S LIKE WE'RE SLAMMING THIS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE WITH A BRICK FENCE. IT JUST IS ODD TO ME.

BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THAT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANY OTHER -- ANYONE THAT HAS NOT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER OSBORN.

CALL THE VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ROLL CALL.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. DISCUSSION.

>> MARCUS, DID ENGINEERING LOOK AT THIS? AS FAR AS THE DRAINAGE IS

CONCERNED. >> ABSOLUTELY. YEAH.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? AM I ON? YEAH.

THEY DID LOOK AT THIS AND AGAIN, WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD STATED EARLIER IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. IT WAS A PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN THAT IS ALWAYS SUBMITTED

[03:35:01]

WITH HE WE DO PLAN DEVELOPMENTS. THE MORE COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE PLAN IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED. THAT COMES AT THE CIVIL SIDE OF THINGS, CIVIL LEVEL OF WHEN THEY SUBMIT THE CIVIL PLANS. AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT, IT'S GOING TO DETERMINE IF ON-SITE RETENTION IS REQUIRED, IT'S GOING TO GO IN YOU KNOW, DOWNSTREAM IMPROVEMENTS, EROSION PROTECTION. YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITHIN THAT COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT AGAIN, SUBMITTED AT THE CIVIL LEVEL.

YOU KNOW, BESIDES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DO LOOK OBVIOUSLY AT, LOOKING MORE AT THE STORMWATER SIDE AS WELL. SO YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO BE SURE, MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS ALSO THAT IT WILL BE FURTHER ADDRESSED. JUST NOT AT THIS LEVEL THAT

WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MOTIONS?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. WAIT.

YEAH. YEAH. SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND. >> HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HILL.

CALL THE VOTE. ROLL CALL. >> THE APPLICANT IS APPROVED 4-3. IS THAT CORRECT? 4-3.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[022 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending Section 4.6017 “Signs Located in General Professional (GP), Community Retail (CR), or Commercial (C) Districts” to include the Light Industrial (LI) District, and Section 4.6020 “Signs Located in Light Industrial (LI), Medium Industrial (MI), Heavy Industrial (HI) Districts” to exclude the Light Industrial (LI) District (Case No. OZ02-2021-045).]

TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.6017, TO INCLUDE THE

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. >> ALL RIGHT. THE LAST ITEM SHOULDN'T TAKE TOO LONG. 15-MINUTE PRESENTATION AND THEN WE'LL -- I'M KIDDING.

>> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION RIGHT NOW. IS THERE A PUBLIC HEARING?

WE HAVE TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING. >> AS I TOLD YOU MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE, WHAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS TRYING TO DO IS BRING FORTH TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BETTER THE CITY, TO PREPARE US FOR FUTURE GROWTH. AS WE'VE DONE SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.

ONE OF THE THESE TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT QUITE A BIT, IT MIGHT SEEM MINOR AT FIRST, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT IT COULD HAVE, IT COULD HAVE LASTING IMPACT. BACK IN 2017, WE ADOPTED A NEW SIGN REGULATIONS, SOME OF THE REGULATIONS, A LOT OF THE REGULATIONS WERE GEARED MORE TOWARD THE COMMUNITY RETAIL, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT. UPON FURTHER ANALYSIS, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR ZONING MAP, AREAS THAT HAVE PROPERTIES ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF IT INTER-MIXED IN THESE OTHER DISTRICTS. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ON MAIN STREET, PROPOSED WAFFLE HOUSE. 7-11 THERE. NEAR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. AS I SAID EARLIER IN THIS MEETING, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS MORE OF A HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. GOING THROUGH THE USES THAT PERMIT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND COMMERCIAL IS PERMITTED IN LI LIGHT AND COMMERCIAL.

ONE OF OUR FEARS, WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO WHEN DEVELOPMENTS HAVE COME IN WITH THESE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, THROUGH AN SUP OR ZONING AMENDMENT, WE'VE HAD THEM MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR SIGNAGE REGULATION.

CURRENTLY ZONING ORDINANCE IS RAN FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE A LOT MORE WALL SIGNAGE THAN YOU WOULD IN THESE OTHER DISTRICTS. FAR REACHING PLACES, THEY USUALLY HAVE LARGER SIGNS TO HELP TRAFFIC FLOW, ET CETERA. BUT WHEN YOU GET MORE IN THE INNER LOOP AREAS, YOU REALLY WANT YOUR SIGNAGE TO BE CONSISTENT. WE REALLY WANT KIND OF A SIMILAR SIGN REGULATIONS, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS LIMIT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. MAKE IT MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCIAL.

WE HAVE A LOT OF PDS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT HAVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS TO IT.

OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO CHANGE THE SIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MEET

[03:40:05]

THE SAME STANDARDS AS OUR COMMUNITY RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND TO REMOVE THAT FROM THE MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.